If you have been following along in the news from state legislatures lately, you are probably under the impression that there has been some kind of epidemic of crime on college campuses. Students are organizing protests to allow more guns on campus and to allow concealed carry permits to apply to ?college campuses.
And gun rights advocates and legislators are going around spouting theories of how guns can prevent crimes common on college campuses.
One of the most prominent organizations, Students for Concealed Carry, was formed in response to the Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007. It claimed armed students could have helped stop the massacre sooner.
This organization, along with one of its executives, IU senior Crayle Vanest, was recently featured in the New York Times for its push to expand concealed carry onto IU’s campus.
As Oklahoma State University professor and National President of sexual assault prevention organization One in Four John D. Foubert said in the article, “If you have a rape situation, usually it starts with some sort of consensual behavior, and by the time it switches to nonconsensual, it would be nearly impossible to run for a gun.”
The evidence shows rape and sexual assault is not likely to occur in a context that a gun would be useful, meaning sexual assault has no place in the concealed carry debate. This misunderstanding of crime in general, and sexual assault specifically, is why the Editorial Board cautiously stands against this proposal.
“The most important thing about concealed carry isn’t the gun,” Miles Vining, President of IU’s chapter of ?Students for Concealed Carry said. “The gun is just a tool, and the tool won’t be useful to you without the right mindset.”
Vining also made a point to emphasize the organization’s activities to increase situational awareness and a defensive mindset, which he described as the true virtue of concealed carry.
This raises a question of the organization’s priorities. If the true virtue of concealed carry is really in the mindset and not the gun, why not focus advocacy efforts toward defensive training?
Training people to be more aware of their surroundings and better prepared to defend themselves could be a legitimate solution many of the issues Students for Concealed Carry is passionate about — but we don’t hear any of them in the policy discussion, nor is this mindset a requirement in obtaining a permit.
The Editorial Board is not in favor of meritless bans, but instituting concealed carry while ignoring what the organization itself believes to be the real benefits is just bad policy work.
Sound policy is made through identifying a clear problem, evaluating evidence, forming an informed solution and balancing that solution’s costs and benefits.
In the eyes of the Editorial Board, Students for Concealed Carry and campus carry advocates have not gone through this process, and until they present a policy that lines up with the priorities they have publicly, we will continue to stand against them.
