Earlier this month, the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) had their “Pitch it to the People” week, and copies of the group’s official handbook circulated various campus organizations. Until now, I have always held the simplistic and criminally naive moral standard of “guns = bad.” As it turns out, I was entirely wrong.
Apparently the rights of students to carry concealed weapons on campus will not make our campus more dangerous. In fact, the imminent threat of an area in which people are permitted to carry guns will create a level of intimidation, preventing those who intend to commit violent crimes from doing so. So it’s not so much that guns aren’t dangerous; they are very dangerous. And it’s the fact they are so dangerous that prevents them from creating danger.And you thought this was going to be illogical.
The real genius of the idea, however, lies in its implications beyond the realm of violent crime. Students of professors whom they know to be carrying guns will be far less likely to make idiotic comments in class or plagiarize their term papers. They will never again complain to the possibly armed janitor about the lack of toilet paper. Just imagine how well contained fraternity parties would be if Kristen Torrey were packing heat.
Weapons on campus would also implement behavioral improvements from our students. In response to the concerns about the presence of firearms in an area with an average BAC of .39, the SCCC handbook contends that the rules prohibiting licensed holders from carrying weapons while under the influence would not be changed. As such legalities have proven to be so effective in eliminating alcohol consumption on college campuses in the past, this technical point appears to eliminate the danger altogether. In fact, if the possession of a weapon ensures a student will not consume alcohol, we should simply distribute them in an effort to curb substance abuse. Koala Week becomes Handgun Week, and AA’s 12-step program culminates in Step 13: Buy a gun! You’ll never drink again!
The other commonly held misconception regarding concealed weapons is that the training process is inadequate. In actuality, some licensing procedures require training to last almost an entire day. Certainly this is enough time for a 21-year-old to learn how to effectively utilize his own personal deadly weapon for, and only for, the purposes of self-defense.
In fact, I believe we as a society have become absurdly demanding when it comes to preparing its citizens for tasks not nearly as volatile as this one. If I can be adequately trained to use a handgun responsibly in a matter of hours, there is no reason why it should take more than 30 minutes to learn to drive a car or any more than a week to become a licensed physician. Once all of these ridiculous requirements have been laid aside, we as a people will have far more time to devote to not drinking.
I came into this issue a bit skeptical, but I am never one to ignore solid logic, and the arguments have moved me. If you yourself are not yet convinced, simply look at the student sitting closest to you. You may not know him, or his personality, or his criminal record, or what floors of which dorm his ID can access, but wouldn’t you feel much safer as a Vanderbilt student and resident if you knew for a fact he was concealing a gun?
Carolyn Pippen is a senior in the College of Arts and Science.  She can be reached at carolyn.m.pippen@vanderbilt.edu.
