"...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
-2 Corinthians 3:17 (NASB)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
~John Adams


Re: Gun Restrictions on Campus

It seems like I have to join the minority on this issue and say why I believe colleges all over the States should allow guns on campus. Many of my peers have written on why they believe it is just "outright foolish" to allow students to carry guns. Now don't get me wrong, I believe ACC has every right to tell me that I can't bring a gun onto their property. If I really don't like it I can leave. My contention is that it is in their best interest to allow students and especially professors and staff members to carry the tools to defend themselves.

Have we learned nothing from the Virginia Tech shootings? There was an outright gun ban on campus, and because of that, when a deranged student, by the name of Seung-Hui Cho, snapped and started shooting, everyone else was defenseless. Had a responsible gun-owner been at the scene, Cho would have gotten maybe three people, rather than thirty. I find it ironic that terrible shootings such as this never happen at a rifle range where people can defend themselves. Massacres tend to occur where people are defenseless.

People these days seem to automatically associate guns with chaos; probably because of selective media coverage. The fact of the matter is that guns are not weapons of chaos, but rather tools of force. Like any tool of force, weather it be a hammer or an AK-47, guns can be used for good or bad. However, statistics consistently reveal that guns are more frequently used to prevent rather than perpetrate crimes. A good friend of mine, whose self-proclaimed specialty is gun control, wrote on ShaunConnell [dot] com that subtracting the number of crimes committed with firearms from the number of people who use these weapons to stop crimes yields a positive result of 1.8 Million (with a big M) crimes stopped per year.

I am not advocating that everyone should carry a gun, just that it would be in any college's best interest to allow people to defend themselves. The first step in doing so is allowing them to carry the "tools."


  1. Unsurprisingly, I'm in complete agreement with you. It's just a basic question of mathematics -- more guns, less crime.

  2. I have to strongly disagree! I'm against individuals carrying guns on campus. First, the nonsense will start by students carrying guns. For those students that are either anti-gun or not qualified to carry a gun will demand that they can carry some sort of alternative weapon for protection. What would that “alternative” weapon be for students? Some examples could be a butcher / hunting knife, a hammer, an ice pick, the list could go on for miles. I understand that nowadays individuals feel vulnerable and defenseless to unexpected tragedies. However, our schools are not battlefields. Therefore, each student has no reason to carry a weapon onto campus. I don’t want to question if the person next to me in class or walking down the hall is carrying a weapon. I feel that we should only let those properly trained carry a weapon (i.e. Campus Police, off-duty peace officer taking classes, etc.) versus the individual taught by their parent, sibling, relative, or friend over a weekend getaway. If everyone identifies school shootings as a reason to carry a weapon, should we allow all passengers via plane, train, or bus be allowed to bear arms as well?

  3. Thanks for posting! I appreciate feedback. But, I do feel that I should defend my position. Fist, let me provide an answer to your question:

    Quote: "...should we allow all passengers via plane, train, or bus be allowed to bear arms as well?"

    Like I stated in my post, I believe that these private organizations have every right to designate their services as weapon-free. That's not what I'm contending. What I will contend is that there is a fundamental difference between trains/planes and colleges because access to the ladder cannot be controlled. It simply would not be feasible to search everyone coming into the college campus.

    Now, I am trying to discern what your postulate is that you read the statistics that I quoted differently than I do. I believe it is this:

    Quote: "...our schools are not battlefields. Therefore, each student has no reason to carry a weapon onto campus."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you believe that if you put weapons in the hands of the average person, the result will be chaos. This is exactly the myth that I wish to dispel.

    When you allow guns, more shots will be fired, but those shots will actually end up harming fewer people. 1.8 million per year to be exact. This is really what the heart of decreasing shootings is all about. Its not as much about preventing the shots from being fired as it is preventing those shots from hurting people.

  4. (Posted on my blog comments as a response to you):

    Hey Brian,
    1) So you basically advocate there being no income taxes on wealthier people? I don’t think you’d find many Americans who find that fair. The FairTax is unique in that the same rate applies to everyone–perfectly equitable. But it’s not regressive because there are different levels of consumption for different people.

    2) The Arkansas House is 72 Democrats and 28 Republicans. The Senate is 28 to 7. When you’re dealing with a veto-proof majority, there’s very little the state executive can do about spending.

    You’re not looking at everything that should be examined: the Dems in the US legislature aren’t veto-proof, it’s a very slim majority. The Arkansas legislature had more than a 2/3 majority, and it only takes 51% to override a veto in Arkansas.

    He used his influence to block the heavy-duty stuff but not every little thing. The fact spending didn’t rise a couple of hundred percent is impressive.

    I wish he would pledge not to raise taxes, he says he doesn’t want to be caught in a bind in “unforeseen circumstances.” He does support making the Bush cuts permanent, however.

  5. I addressed what I believe to be a fair tax system in a previous post: what is property?

    Both the income and "fair" systems miss a key point: it is morally wrong to force individuals to pay for a service they will not use.

    Now I addressed point 2 in a more recent post:
    Huck's Army-Of Bureaucrats

    Happy New year everyone!

  6. Interestingly enough, the Texan Declaration of Independance had this complaint against Mexico:

    "It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential for our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical Governments."

    Sound familiar?