Guns, students on campus a bad mix
Counterpoint:
By Elwood Johnson
Why are our conversations so political in nature? John Andrews’ May 2 response to Allen Johnson’s comment about guns on campus was just that.
Yes, we have a natural and constitutional right to self-defense. I don’t hold cars responsible for the actions of drunken drivers, and I don’t hold guns responsible for the actions of those who illegally use them.
Does that make me a conservative?
However, I don’t believe any students, regardless how “mature” they are, should be able to carry guns on campus.
Does that make me a liberal?
I’m a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill and earned two post-graduate degrees during my 30-year military career. I remember those spirited conversations with fellow students. I may have been more reserved in my comments, especially about politics, if I had believed a fellow student was “carrying” in my classes. Emotions can run high during those types of discussions.
But, that’s not why I disagree with Mr. Andrews.
The concept of “field of fire” is the main reason why I disagree with him. Just imagine the chaos that erupts on a campus in response to a rampaging gunman. Now, imagine a mature, but untrained, student trying to protect him or herself during the melee. Even the best-trained law professional would have difficulty with target acquisition during that type of scenario. In an attempt to minimize collateral damage, law professionals are trained to evaluate the eventual impact of the expended round in case they miss their primary target(s). Would a “mature” student be so critical in his shoot/no-shoot decision-making process?
The May 1 edition of the News & Record had a great example of this self-defense concept when a burglar kicked in a homeowner’s back door. The owner missed his target, but he had a much better field of fire than a “mature” college student would probably have on a terrified college campus. (Apparently, the homeowner needs some range practice time.)
Enough of this conversation, folks! We have too many other pressing issues in this country that demand our attention. President Obama has consistently stated that we must be held responsible for our actions. I have seen many guns in my life, but I have yet to find one that has the ability to exercise free will.
Only the human being holding the weapon can do that.
The writer is a Greensboro native who lives in Henderson.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"The May 1 edition of the News & Record had a great example of this self-defense concept when a burglar kicked in a homeowner’s back door. The owner missed his target..."
Nonsense. The owner's success in the scenario was documented in the very article you brought up.
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/04/30/article/home_owner_shoots_at_man_who_kicked_in_his_door
"The burglar ran..."
Ta-dah. The threat was no more.
The point of being armed isn't to kill. It is to diminish threats. You cite your military career, so you should know this (MAD? Ball ammo?). Thanks for mentioning that article, though. Your homeowner demonstrated the technique nicely. He remains safe. And I doubt the burglar is coming back. Wow, look. The "gun free zones" of schools demonstrate your technique nicely as well, although with worse results. Guess who keeps coming back?
Good thing no one at Virginia Tech had to worry about their "field of fire" as they jumped out of second-story windows while watching their professor being shot to death through a door. I mean, who could possibly know if there was someone out for a casual stroll behind Cho as he was shooting through the door? Goodness, let's base our argument on the statistical improbability of a stray bullet in the arm or leg from a legal concealed-weapon-holding teacher or student attempting to defend herself from a killing spree on a gun-free campus... What was Cho's final body count? 32? 33?
But yeah, good thing no adults at Virginia Tech had the opportunity your still-alive "needs some range time" homeowner did.
May your children remain safe. If they don't, may your burden be light as, through your projection and lack of faith in others, you one day wonder if your child's last thought was,
"I wish a policeman with a gun was here to protect me."
Posted on May 8, 2009 10:03 AM
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE53T1NF20090430
University shooting in Azerbaijan recently.
"A witness said one student had tried to stop the gunman, approaching him and shouting: "Don't shoot, don't shoot!" He was shot in the head."
So how's that unarmed response working out for ya, hmmm?
Posted on May 8, 2009 10:21 AM
How do we feel about poisoned darts?
Posted on May 8, 2009 10:33 AM
My Kimber doesn't feed them reliably.
Posted on May 8, 2009 10:47 AM
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.....
Posted on May 8, 2009 12:43 PM
Deranged lunatics rarely abide by gun laws.
Think about it.
Posted on May 8, 2009 1:22 PM
I agree Elwood, best for the students to assume the prone position, making themselves a smaller target, and hope the lunatic gunman spends all his ammo before it's your turn.
Better yet, put a rainbow bumper sticker on your car. Even lunatic gunmen will think twice before committing a hate crime.
Posted on May 8, 2009 4:15 PM
Mr Johnson when you said "The concept of “field of fire” is the main reason why I disagree with him."
Is your idea that the "field of fire" is only allowed to come from the other direction?
Better to have a gun and not need it than need one and not have it.
Now, imagine a mature, but unarmed student trying to protect him or herself during the melee.
No imagination needed here, this is what we have and what you want to keep.
Posted on May 8, 2009 6:38 PM