On Air America Radio Rachel Maddow is currently running an ad ostensibly making fun of those who want the right to concealed carry on college campuses. In the ad she says, “What they’re telling us is that guns plus more guns plus crazy people with guns equals peace.” Rachel is missing the point.
What people who are for concealed carry on campus are saying is, “People on campus with guns who have been through a background check and a certification class means crazy people with guns will think twice about attempting a massacre, and should they attempt it, they will be more quickly stopped.”
My wife is taking criminology classes at the local university. One of her instructors sent her a flyer with a crossed out handgun with text that states: “Unarmed Victim Zone: NO HELP FOR 20 MINUTES.”
For those of us with a concealed carry permit, we know, from the course we were required to take prior to applying for the permit, that in a defensive situation we are responsible and accountable for whatever we hit. If we miss the attacker but hit a fire hydrant and it floods a building causing thousands in damage, we have responsibility for the damage. If we are defending ourselves and the attacker runs away but we continue shooting, we are then causing harm rather than protecting ourselves. In that instance we can be found guilty of a crime. Just as the criminal liability is high should we overstep our legal right, the civil liability is also extremely high, even when the defensive shooter is in the right.
When Rachel says concealed-carry-approved people with guns plus crazy people (I might say criminals) with guns “equals peace,” she’s making another mistake. When a person defends herself against deadly force with a handgun that doesn’t equal peace. It equals justice. In the Virginia Tech shootings there was no justice. The shooter shot as many people as he wanted, then killed himself. There were no campus police officers that could stop the crime because they are also kept from their weapons. The police patrol and S.W.A.T. response will never be fast enough to stop such an attack because of our human rights. To make the police response quick enough would require police on every corner all the time – a police state. Should citizens with the training and permit to carry a firearm be allowed to carry on campus they would be able to respond defensively to stop and attack like the one at Virginia Tech.
Where a critique might be intelligently levied by a talk-show host against concealed carry on campus has to do with the backstop. Every person permitted to carry a gun is taught they must keep their finger off the trigger until their firearm is aligned on their attacker and that they know their backstop. The backstop is where the bullet will end up should it pass all the way through the target. As I mentioned before, a defensive shooter is responsible for whatever they hit. If the walls are paper-thin as they are in much modern construction, the defensive shooter might not be aware that the backstop isn’t safe. In a college there are students in room after room separated by the thinnest barrier. This could pose a danger should the defensive shooter not understand the construction of the building. On the other hand, those of us who have a concealed carry permit are expected to consider these realities of our environment so that we can be safe, should such an event occur.
This, to me, is the complicated arena in which we can really debate the logic of firearms in the hands of licensed citizens on campus. Do the risks posed by the complex, people-filled environments outweigh the risks posed by banning weapons on campus? I don’t think Rachel Maddow is prepared to debate the issues on such a level.