Published Apr. 8, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Oklahoma House Bill 2513, which would have allowed concealed weapons to be carried on state-funded college campuses, was killed recently by the state Senate Appropriations Committee. The co-chairmen of that committee — one of whom is a former police officer and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association — thankfully saw the fallacy of the bill and tabled it.
The bill, proposed by Rep. James Murphey, R.-Guthrie, sought to give college students an opportunity for self-defense in the event of a shooter on campus. This is not a bad idea at all, particularly in the light of the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.
That idea, though hypothetically appealing, in actuality presents several problems in any potential real-life situation. Those problems are exacerbated by the ambiguities and holes in this particular bill.
The amount of work currently necessary to obtain such a concealed weapon license in Oklahoma is minimal at best. Applicants for these licenses go through eight hours of training, and the only actual shooting training involves a short-range paper target at a closed range. That’s it. The course only makes use of low-powered handguns, but nevertheless grants a license to conceal and carry any type of legal weapon — including high-powered hunting rifles and even civilian versions of military-type weapons. HB 2513 would allow any licensed 21-year-old to legally pack this kind of heat anywhere on a college campus. That is not a good idea; there are just too many associated risks.
Secondly, Murphey believes the students legally armed under his bill would be able to hinder an attacker. Such an attacker, who would be armed, is not likely to wave a white flag in the face of a brandished weapon. No, the only real way to stop or slow down an armed attacker is to shoot, and maim or kill. According to the bill’s author, students with firearms could, would and should do just this.
I cannot agree.
The psychological ramifications of intentionally causing a bullet to rip into a person’s body and severely injuring or even killing him or her are not to be taken lightly. Even highly trained professionals in the military and police forces often need to undergo months of intensive therapy to return to a normal mental state after taking another person’s life. These people very often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of their experience. A 20-year-old student, even with a concealed carry license, cannot be seriously expected do perform such an action. This is especially true when all the shooting required to get that license involves targeting a piece of paper. In fact, it is extremely doubtful that anyone who shot at a paper target in a shooting range for a few hours would have the mental fortitude to take steely aim at a heavily armed attacker and shoot, particularly in a situation as emotionally intense and terrifying as having a shooter loose in campus buildings.
Students cannot and should not be made into vigilantes and armed responders inside their own classrooms.
Proponents of the bill have argued that the thought of potentially facing armed students would deter a gunman from attacking that particular college campus. Well, this would imply that the gunman was thinking clearly. Anyone who loads a weapon with the intention of killing civilians and then follows through is not thinking clearly. Almost all the infamous school shooters of our time have had significant psychological problems.
They probably would not regard the possibility of armed resistance as much of a deterrent. The vast majority of school shooters end up turning the gun on themselves. Those that have left suicide notes or videos have revealed themselves to have had thoughts of suicide for quite some time, and dreamt of dying in a blaze of glorious gunfire. Thus, somewhat frighteningly, the idea of facing flashing gun barrels might even make a potential shooter more likely to go on a killing spree.
This bill was doomed to fail, in my opinion, from the very beginning. It had noble intentions in its quest to protect college students. The bill’s ideas, however, don’t make sense in the real world, and even seem influenced by television and Hollywood. Students rising up to overcome armed attackers can happen anywhere, but generally only does happen when there are a script and camera involved. Moreover, it places too much of the burden of protection on the students themselves — who probably would be scared out of their minds in the very situations that they are expected to perform in. Students should not have to pack guns and ammo alongside their books and pencils.
Allowing more guns on campus is not the way to fight against college shootings — especially not more guns in student hands.
