The hotly-contested issue of concealed weapons on campus tends to pop up in The Daily Campus articles on a frequent basis.
As a longtime firearms supporter and sportsman, I have noticed that these articles tend to focus on only the aspect of school shootings. There is little, if any, attention paid to the other issues of concealed carry.
Allow me to introduce other areas of debate pertaining to concealed carry.
Concealed guns accomplish more than prevent active shooters. Laws that allow concealed carry have been passed in nearly every state.
When these laws were made, care was taken to outline the four major instances where it is justified to use a weapon in defense. These four instances consist of preventing murder or grave bodily harm, halting rape and violent sexual assaults, stopping kidnappings and preventing arson.
A shooter on campus falls in only a small subset of the first instance. Yet this tends to be the focus of 99 percent of the arguments I hear, either for or against concealed carry.
Serious considerations to the other occasions need to be addressed and debated. In all fairness, any crime on SMU’s campus is rare, but the frequency of violence and sexual assaults on campus is multitudes higher than our history of shooting sprees.
To be honest, I have the muscle mass of a jellyfish, and I don’t intend to spend all of my time learning karate. Any violent attack against me is highly likely to succeed.
Even so, as I walk down the sidewalk, I notice that the female population of SMU is far more vulnerable than I am. If an attacker were intent to do ill unto them, there is very little that can be done. It only takes a few seconds to incapacitate a victim.
Speaking from personal experience, as noble as our police force is, it is near impossible for them to react in time to prevent a crime. Unfortunately, by the time they arrive the police are only able to deal with the aftermath.
Firearms have been called “The Great Equalizer” for proven reasons.
In a past age, society would just have to deal with “the strong rule the weak” mindset. But in the present, every person is guaranteed an equal share to live their lives.
While the tangible effects of concealed carry are about preventing violence, the true essence of an armed individual is to create a final and true equity. Concealed firearms empower the physically weaker members of society to live in a manner that liberates them from the fear of hostile aggression.
The ability to defend yourself against force is a universal right. And to outlaw any reasonable form of protection is to infringe on this basic right. Denying concealed weapons, the current gold standard of personal defense, to licensed individuals is at best unjust.
If a person does not feel that he or she have the responsibility or ability to protect himself, then he has the free choice not to exercise that right. But for those people to call for restrictions on another responsible citizen’s civil liberties in addition is entirely unreasonable.
A concealed carry license is not a license to kill, as many people seem to envision it. It is legal proof that the carrier is a law abiding citizen who is willing to take up the obligation of defending themselves from threat.
But self-defense is not the only job concealed carriers must work for. The duty to save another person from the gravest of circumstance is one that concealed carriers take up every day.
No self-respecting concealed carrier wants to use her weapon on or off campus; I know I don’t. But if a circumstance arises that threatens lives, those present should hope that concealed carriers are willing and able to use it to save themselves and the people around them.
To deny concealed carry to students because one believes that they will act only on base instincts ignores all of those who have already proven themselves to be reliable and trustworthy, not only to the state, but to their peers.
Wade Bruner is a senior majoring in computer science. He can be reached for comments or questions at
