Gunning for it

Before the dust had even settled at Virginia Tech, there was already talk of policy change in the air. The depth of the tragedy was observed for the first few moments, but ever after there were irreconcilable debates held at campuses everywhere about what precisely should be done about handgun laws. Even now, a conclusion in the near future is improbable.\nLast week’s “empty holster” protest held at college campuses across the country was a further reminder. The aim of the protest was to demonstrate that without the ability to carry handguns, students are defenseless. The event was observed last week by a sparse, yet vocal, group of “concealed carry” advocates \non campus. \nBut for us, the mental image of a Virginia Tech that allowed concealed carry at the time of the massacre isn’t much better. A fire fight between inexperienced, overzealous handgun owners would have complicated the situation and would probably result in more bodies on the ground. \nAfter all, people forget just how easy it is to apply for concealed carry status in Indiana. You need to be a person of “good character and reputation” and neither be mentally retarded nor previously convicted of violent felonies. That’s it. While the police and military require their members who would carry guns to undergo intense training to be deemed competent in a fire fight, concealed carry advocates would open up this privilege to anyone with a clear criminal history and money for the application fee. \nA gun is not a means to defend oneself; it’s merely an ingredient. Without self-possession, level-headedness and tactical expertise, a handgun owner can only get himself into deeper trouble. These abilities don’t come with the license. \nThe only people at IU allowed to carry guns should be the people we pay to defend us, whose job it is to ensure our safety. The last thing we need to do is turn violent crises into amateur night, potentially empowering a group of vigilantes to transform crises into catastrophes, to undermine law enforcement and place both themselves and others at further risk. \nIt’s commonly said that because guns are accessible to criminals, everyone should be able to have them. But Cho Seung Hui was able to buy a gun despite being institutionalized for mental health problems – a flaw in the system that should be fixed through tougher background checks. Putting more guns on the streets isn’t \na solution. \nThe next time you see two people getting into a shoving match at the Indiana Memorial Union, or fighting drunkenly on a bar crawl, ask yourself what would happen if one of them had a gun. Few people enraged enough to fight in a public place would have the presence of mind to differentiate between acceptable forms of violence. We are a society of laws, with a developed and stratified legal system that takes great care to distinguish right from wrong, and only doles out punishments after weighing all the facts available. Concealed carry advocates want to amend this process down to only the time it takes to draw.