April 2nd: four killed, sixteen injured on Fort Hood Military Base. CBS News reported the suspect, Specialist Ivan Lopez, is said to have possibly been suffering mental instability. No surprise there. We are aware of many of the factors that contribute to mass shootings, yet the most effective means of preventing or responding to these situations is still unclear and highly contested. Perhaps there is no right answer, but “fighting fire with fire” has never, logically nor emotionally, resonated with me.
Enabling our campus police to carry firearms would seem an ineffective, if not destructive, overreaction.
Guns are conductors of violence. They may not be the perpetrator, but they are the non-human accessories to offenses both criminal and accidental. Accessories, in the traditional sense, enhance your outfit; in this case they enhance the degree of violence and level of harm capable of being cultivated. Regardless of the intent, the context or the individuals involved, guns heighten the severity of the consequences of any altercation.
The individuals stationed at the Fort Hood Military Base were trained officials, many of whom carried firearms. Despite having an immense resource of people “proficient” in the defensive utilization of firearms, it did not contribute to a less violent resolution. This is said not to hold those individuals accountable, but to comment on the effectiveness of having guns present.
The lack of effectiveness, coupled with the increased chances of accidental violence, leads to a conservative conclusion to avoid the intentional increase of firearms present on our campus. In the debate whether or not to entrust our campus police with firearms, I firmly oppose that movement. Though I would certainly place more faith in the people of the U.S. military to properly utilize a gun than our Campus Safety, it is a seemingly moot point, as they demonstrated that even in the hands of trained officials, guns are both dangerous and ineffective in a crisis scenario. The work of our campus safety is appreciated and invaluable, but few have faith in their capabilities. Frankly, I would be more uncomfortable knowing they are walking around with a lethal firearm than without.
Recognizing that there have been concerns about the criminal occurrences observed on and around our campus, anxiety about being adequately defended is reasonable. In order to appease both sides of this debate, perhaps it is worth considering firearms that use rubber bullets. This would enable enforcers to successfully impede and apprehend offenders, yet would not cause severe bodily harm or risk fatality. Nevertheless, these maintain the label of weapon and should be used with the same degree of restraint.
BB guns were a thing of the past, but maybe they’re now a thing of the future. These children’s toys transformed into legitimate defense weapons may provide a proposal more people can support. Could you be behind a BB backup plan?
