Thanksgiving is a time for family, friends and food. It is a time to reflect on all for which we have to be grateful in our lives. It is also a time for political arguments among our guests at dinner. For some, guns may have been the discussion around the dinner table. For me, guns on campus was a topic.
The discussion began with the question of something to the effect of, "Dusty, would you ever consider arming your faculty in anticipation of a shooter on campus?" My answer was a resounding, "No."
Let me point out that I am not "anti-gun." My father had guns for hunting; my grandfather had guns; my uncles and cousins have guns. While I don't think that anyone needs a rapid-fire machine gun or automatic weapon, I believe that guns for hunting and self-protection in the hands of competent owners are fine. However, in the wake of many shootings on college campuses, I cannot subscribe to the belief that the solution is more guns on campus.
Texas
recently passed a law that allows anyone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon with the ability to carry on college campuses. The theory seems to be that if there is a "good guy" with a gun in the room, the "bad guy" with a gun will go down; thus, limiting the loss of life during an active shooter incident. I believe that this will not be the case in most incidents on a college campus should such an event arise. This scenario is a somewhat romanticized movie version of a shooting incident.
Let's explore such a scenario. We know that most shooters who come to college campuses are trying to shoot as many people as they can in a short period of time. We also know that in some cases, the perpetrator expects to die either at the hands of law enforcement or with their own hand. Therefore, arming faculty or knowingly allowing concealed weapons on campus will not likely deter a shooter.
We also know that an actual shoot-out in a confined space is very chaotic. Trained professionals have a difficult time hitting a moving target in such a space in the heat of the moment. Additionally, as the battle ensues, it may be difficult, even for a professional, to focus only on the single perpetrator. As bullets fly across a room, there is a lot of confusion and pressure.
Picture a well-meaning individual (or group of people) who has limited gun training, and even less training regarding hostile situations, pulling out their weapon in an attempt to fire back and kill the perpetrator. It is more likely that innocent people will be hit with stray bullets as a part of the gun fire. It is very likely that people will lose their lives due to "friendly fire."
Lastly, there is a very likely scenario in which law enforcement rushing into a building during an active shooter incident will not know the "good guy" with a gun from the "bad guy" with a gun when several people have guns raised in the air. The confusion will be exacerbated in the multiple gun scenario by those running and screaming in fear.
No -- more guns is NOT the answer. I, like every president of a college, lose sleep over the potential that someone may come to my campus with a purpose of killing a specific individual or a group of people. I take my responsibility to protect the students, faculty and staff seriously. In today's hostile culture, we need to look for tools that can help us all protect ourselves and our campus. Cameras, trainings, drills, armed and trained professionals and other tools can help. Simply adding more guns to the mix will not.
Some of you will disagree with me; that's fine. I hope that we never have to debate this issue in the aftermath of a tragedy at FM.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
