Arizona: TRL Contributor Reports From The Desert On Campus Carry

Updated: Thursday, March 6, 2008, 7:22 am -- The New York Times weighs in on the Arizona carry discussion.

*********
Daniel Greenberg, a sophomore at the University of Arizona, is an occasional contributor to The Ready Line. A native of Bexley, Ohio, Daniel is both intensely serious, and yet has a very wicked, and wry sense of humor. This week he filed a report for us regarding the debate over faculty and students at campuses throughout Arizona being legally allowed to defend themselves with their self defense tool of choice.

Like on all college campuses, the debate has intensified in the University of Arizona community. Virginia Tech was a wakeup call for many that college campuses have been turned into victim-rich zones. The more recent incidents at Louisiana Tech and Northern Illinois University were tragic, and fresh reminders that little has been done to safeguard our young people, and campus communities. Thankfully, volunteer organizations like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are working to change that.

Here is Daniel's "Report From The Arizona Desert."

Campus Carry Heats Up
By Daniel Greenberg

Here at the University of Arizona, the school newspaper's letters section has been filled with a myriad of stories and opinions related to this issue. Naturally, I tossed in my own response to the Arizona Daily Wildcat regarding someone else's letter in-between classes. Others praised it, but I felt it was rushed and mediocre. Still, it's the same basic back-and-forth argument: either it is our right and responsibility to defend ourselves effectively, or police are omnipotent and citizens cannot be trusted at all to do anything right but be victims.

Coincidentally, just a couple weeks ago, a friend who lives a block away from the central campus was assaulted in his home by a large posse, angry that he drove a drunk girl home. His roommate was attacked first and, sleeping, was beaten in his own bed. It took the Tucson Police Department about three hours to get there, and then they gave the victim the run-around. Officers tried to convince him there was no solid case, even though it would be easy to ID the criminals. Worse, they later pretended they couldn't solve the crime and claimed they couldn't divulge case details to anyone. Because it’s still an open case, you see.

I like and respect plenty of police officers I meet, but superheros they are not. Frankly, most will be the first to acknowledge that.

Generally, there has been absolutely no opposition to "guns on campus;" merely opposition to civilian (non-military) gun ownership in the first place. Only one person quoted in the newspapers, out of many, had any sort of decent argument worth debate: hoplophobes would have trouble focusing on schoolwork knowing that all those firearms are around. Because guns are a disease, you know. Just ask the Centers for Disease Control, which checks accidental death statistics via gun use, but not life-saving ones. I'm still mystified, however, how people seem to fear guns but not the rapist, or mugger, or worse.

Also, what's coming out is that government officials continue to want total control over what they describe as "our safety," yet will assume zero liability the moment someone points a finger in their direction. Frankly, late police arrivals and an "Alert Message" to my mobile phone isn't going to do the trick. It is flat out "unacceptable" as the sole means to protect the women and men who attend UA as students, not to mention our collective faculty and staff.

Last Monday, Arizona's state Senate Judiciary Committee voted to support legislation allowing students and staff at community colleges and state universities carry permitted guns for protection. The committee voted 4-3, and the bill will now go to the Senate floor for debate between all members.

An early draft of the bill included the right for school staff in public schools -- kindergarten through 12th grade. But critics demanded public schools be removed from the plan. State Sen. Karen Johnson, who sponsored this bill, has been hesitant to make such a change. In an interview with the Arizona Republic newspaper, she said, "I still feel our little kindergartners are sitting there as sitting ducks." She admitted, however, that removing the K-12 provision now gives her legislation a far better chance of moving forward.

Here is the most recent letter I wrote:

"In response to Chris McPherson's letter yesterday, ‘Concealed weapons holders a danger to others,’ I offer two crucial ideas: the general reliability of our fellow Americans and the principles our country ideally operates from. While Mr. McPherson questions the education of civilians, he does not do so for government employees -- one could generalize just as easily that citizens who want to rely on a firearm will be more efficient than a police officer that is forced to carry one around.

"One must also look at the education of a licensed citizen: What is offered is not merely education on the mechanics and technical use of a firearm, but the laws regarding its use and the way it should be responsibly used. National Rifle Association firearms safety classes, for example, hammer into the citizen's head the idea that responsibility and legal liability are central in firearm use. Furthermore, most of these school shooting scenarios doubtfully involve a maniacal murderer shooting students with a pistol from 50 yards away. To assume that licensed citizens have insufficient experience and will use it is more than mere skepticism, it's extreme pessimism unfounded in the reality of so many skilled American firearms owners.

"This fits in just as well with ideals I would assume McPherson holds as an American concerning individual responsibility. Police should never be relied upon to be superheroes, flying in to the situation in the nick of time and miraculously saving everyone. What is needed in these situations to prevent mass murder, followed by the criminal's expected suicide, is an immediate local response by a skilled and armed individual; this will be far more likely if responsible, law-abiding citizens are legally permitted to effectively defend themselves -- as they rightfully should be.

"In an assault, counting on Tucson police, who even on University of Arizona Police Department territory just outside campus have responded to an assault hours late, may not be the greatest idea. The focus should be a reminder that police are not bodyguards. They can help, but they are not responsible for your protection. They're responsible for executing the law. Citizens are responsible for their own protection, and denying them of this freedom is to act upon an unreasonable fear of free citizens -- in other words, tyranny.

"Allowing concealed weapons on campus is both the effective and American approach, and should be the default solution."

Daniel, thanks for the great report! I hope we hear from you as this sorely needed campus safety legislation moves its way toward passage.