Controlling weapons

In the present sense, there are approximately eight states that claim to have regulations that authorize people to carry weapons to various university campuses. Alternatively, individual universities have the chance to vote on permitting weapons on their grounds in around 24 states. The primary rationality is defense, according to the supporters of these rules. From this example, such advocates assume that in the necessary attacks in case pupils, as well as instructors have the weapons, shooters are less likely to accomplish their targets, hence the ability to fight back. Nonetheless, there are various research findings, which have been able to determine that these carry laws on campus have insignificant influence in deterring the rampage shooters. In this paper, the focus is on the illustration of the arguments against allowing guns in the college campuses based on inability to deter mass shootings, increased injuries, and deaths.

Firstly, allowing guns on the college campuses have no substantive implications in deterring mass shootings in such learning institutions. Supporters of the carry laws have been able to engage in the debate aimed at popularizing the idea that armed criminals have more chances of attaching the ‘gun free’ zones since nobody can be able to fight back against their actions. From this argument, the proponents of the carry laws believe that the college campuses, which banned students from carrying guns, are more dangerous in comparison to their counterparts allowing their students to have the desired protection against armed criminals (Birnbaum, 2013). However, this argument does not have the valuable support of data. For instance, between 1966 and 2015, just about over 10 percent of the high fatality mass shootings across the United States have taken place at campuses or elsewhere concerning the ‘gun free’ zones. Moreover, about 5 percent of such cases did take place in the ‘gun restricted’ institutions or zones. In such areas, security guards had the arms while civilians did adhere to the rules and regulations regarding carrying the weapons (Dahl, Bonham, & Reddington, 2016). The publication by the National Bureau of Economic Research has been able to confirm these findings. Allowing individuals to carry guns tend to associate with the increased instances of the violent crime. Violent crimes have been able to increase in the states, which sought to adopt and implement laws highlighting the right to carry arms.

Moreover, armed civilians have inadequate expertise and experience, thus, not likely to prevent or stop rampage shooters. In the midst of the increased mass shooting incidences, campus carry's proponents have been able to argue that responsible gun-toting civilians in the areas would be valuable in thwarting attackers. Pro-gun advocates have been able to highlight various instances in which armed civilians were able to help stop gunmen. Nonetheless, it is essential to note that most of these cases, the trained guards were able to help stop the gunmen rather than the civilians (Proffitt, et al., 2017). In other instances, armed civilians were able to engage in detaining of the perpetrators following their finishing of the shooting practices. In these cases, the armed civilians never used their guns in the course of stopping the gunmen in question. Alternatively, in the separate mass shootings, armed civilians did try to stop the attackers, but failed in their strides while others lost their lives in the process. The effective and efficient response to the active-shooting situation desires extensive, as well as adequate training. It is not believable that the campus students, as well as civilian staff and faculty, will be able to engage in an accurate shooting during the active shooter situations upon mere passage of the minimal training requirements for the permit to carry the weapons (LaBanc, Melear, & Hemphill, 2014). Students, civilian staff, and faculty tend to lack appropriate training on the use of firearms in the prevention of the mass shootings in the learning institutions.

Additionally, researchers have been able to document the role and influence of the campus carry laws on leading to more suicides, as well as other gun-related violence. Based on this argument, students are less likely to contribute to the stoppage of rampage shooting than they are to utilize the available firearms to inflict harm on others, as well as themselves. It is essential to note that young adults have brains, which are still developing, thus, high potentialities of compromising impulse judgment and control. These attributes are more essential in avoidance of the circumstances in which arms might lead to tragedy. This might highlight the reasons why 19-to-21-year-olds depict the highest rate of the homicide offenses following the data from the criminologists. Furthermore, there is an increased likelihood of the violent confrontations based on the presence of alcohol, as well as binge-drinking, especially among the college students (Wood, 2014). Researchers have also been able to document the increased instances of suicidal behaviors, particularly in the mid-20s as evident in the presence of anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses among the college students. Access to the firearms has been critical in increasing suicide risks among the young adults and adolescents. In this context, the most appropriate approach would be to limit the presence and availability of the firearms to the students who form the majority of the young adults within the society.

Conclusively, it is inappropriate for the states to pass various laws allowing students in the campuses to carry a gun to the learning institutions. These carry laws will continue to make it harder for the law enforcement agencies in the determination of whether the armed students are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ people. It is appropriate to engage in thanking the law enforcement agencies in the process of responding to the different shootings courageously rather than participating in the passage of the laws making their job impossible and dangerous. In the paper, it is evident that integration of the laws will not be appropriate in contributing to the stoppage of the numerous cases of mass shootings in the public places inclusive of the learning institutions. Categorically, gun restriction laws will have more implications for the reduction of the cases of violent crimes in the learning institutions in comparison to the presence of such laws on various college campuses.

There are various readings in Chapter 6 of The St. Martins Guide to Writing, which is valuable in gaining the prowess to argue a position effectively. In this assignment, Amitai Etzioni’s reading played a critical role in informing my argument for a position upon selection of the topic on gun control, especially in the learning institutions. I was able to use this reading in understanding arguments and counterarguments on the selected topic. I was also able to use the reading to explore the topic effectively and efficiently through concentrating on the topic under discussion. 

References

Proffitt, J. M., et al., (2017), “11 Preventing Violence or Promulgating Fear? ALEC, the             NRA, and Guns on Campus

Wood, P. (2014), “Gun-Free Campuses,” Academic Questions, 27(4), 426-428.

Birnbaum, R. (2013), “Ready, fire, aim: The college campus gun fight,” Change: The             Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(5), 6-14.

LaBanc, B. H., Melear, K. B., & Hemphill, B. O. (2014), “The Debate over Campus-Based Gun Control Legislation,” JC & UL, 40, 397

Dahl, P. P., Bonham, Jr, G., & Reddington, F. P. (2016), “Community college faculty:             Attitudes toward guns on campus,” Community College Journal of Research and      Practice, 40(8), 706-717.