People should be allowed to carry guns on college campuses. This is a very sensitive issue that needs proper evaluation. However, due to the rising number of gun violence cases in educational centers, self-defense should be considered a priority. In the United States, the rate of gun violence in schools has tremendously increased to devastating levels that need proper mitigation. Therefore, people should be allowed to carry guns in schools because it provides them with an opportunity to defend themselves from violent individuals. In most states, policies have been drafted to allow adults to have guns in their homes for protection. This is a very bold move, however it has helped reduce the number of cases related to gun violence in Texas and the whole country. However, this policy does not consider the lives of students in dormitories and other facilities of learning. Therefore, it makes sense for students to be allowed to defend themselves in their new homes. Dormitories are just like homes for many students, allowing them to carry firearms on campus will help reduce mass shootings across colleges nationwide. More than 40 schools have been involved in the shooting menace between 1997 and 2007 ( Lemieux, 2014) . These shootings have resulted in more than 70 deaths and countless injuries to survivors. In the year 2000, a six-year-old shot and killed six people in Mount Morris Township in Michigan. Gun manufacturers in America release almost 3.5 million firearms in the market on an annual basis. Texas is among the ten states that have approved a policy allowing individuals above 18 years of age to carry concealed weapons in public. Most parts of the colleges are considered to be part of the public; hence the reason people should be allowed to carry concealed hand-guns.
It is also clear that since the implementation of gun control policy, criminal cases have reduced. This is attributed to the increase in the number of gun owners nationwide. Research has corroborated that the increase in the number of guns in the society does not have a greater impact on the occurrence of crime. This clearly ascertains that guns on campuses will have little impact on the number of crime and gun-related issues. Hence, it is logical for people to carry guns in schools since it provides them with an opportunity to defend themselves and others from adversaries. Most schools hire police officers to protect students and faculty from danger, however, one officer against an assailant who has an assault style rifle will not be able to protect everyone. With that said, an authority figure or student who has a licensed firearm can provide much needed support to the officer until back up arrives to apprehend an active shooter. This is a life-saving mission that can be extremely effective in the fight against gun violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms. Why are citizens’ constitutional rights being taken away from college campuses? Once a student reaches the stipulated age of carrying a weapon why should he or she be denied the right? Students who have reached the age of 18 years are considered adults and should be treated as such. The second amendment does not specify if a student is not allowed to carry guns, therefore, they should not be denied to act as per the stipulations of this law. Additionally, guns are not the only hazardous weapons in learning facilities. It is important to note that chemistry classes provide learners with skills to make explosives in labs. Surprisingly, the materials used to make explosives are not banned in schools.
Furthermore, guns should be allowed on the campus because they do not have a direct effect on the learning process. Learning has nothing to do with gun handling. Research has affirmed that concealed weapon helps students to focus more since they feel secure. This policy clearly stipulates that guns should be concealed by owners ( Wike & Fraser, 2009) . In addition, students who have met the stipulated age limit should go through the same background check similar to that of adults. Consequently, this provides them with a responsibility to keep the weapon concealed just like other responsible adults in public.
Restrictions To Be Enforced
Even though people should be allowed to carry guns on the campus, there are certain restrictions that should be implemented to ensure that misuse of guns is limited. The most fundamental restriction is to ensure that only those individuals who have met the 18 year age limit are the ones to be offered guns. At the age of 18, an individual is deemed mature and able to make sober decisions in times of crisis ( Wike & Fraser, 2009). Therefore, students who have met the stipulated policy guidelines should be the ones to carry the concealed guns in public. However, the law also stipulates that minors can own guns on condition that they present a written document from a legal guardian permitting him or her to have a weapon for self-defense. However, these cases should be limited enough since minors are prone to misuse of firearms. Also, guns should be concealed so as to reduce the level of anxiety in learning institutions. Exposure of guns to the public can have a detrimental effect on the learning activities since some people find it difficult to concentrate with such weapons in public. In the event that these guns are allowed on campuses, the institutions of learning should restrict students from carrying their concealed guns on some premises such as classrooms. The carrying of firearms in the offices should be restricted to educators who have passed and extensive background check.
It is also important to enforce strict restrictions on how guns are used in the learning institution. Students should not be allowed to use the gun in any other activities apart from the extreme cases of self-defense. This policy clearly restricts gun owners to use the licensed gun for sporting, hunting, and other leisure activities. Therefore, students and other staff members should not use their guns to pose threats to others or even kill their critics in the name of self-defense. This will help to reduce misuse of firearms in campuses. However, it is not logical for every student who has reached the age of 18 to carry a concealed weapon. The school should vet responsible students so as to evaluate their behavior before being allowed to carry a gun. This will help to ensure that those who carry guns remain responsible and disciplined enough. This will also help with the reduction of crime cases on campus. The gun control officers should also collaborate with the campus management to carry out a regular background check on the individualized licensed to carry guns in the institution. This will help to enhance discipline in the handling of firearms in the campuses.
Policy Changes to Mitigate Gun Violence
There is need to make substantial changes to the gun handling policy so as to further decrease the number of gun violence cases experienced in the US. In 2011, Texas experienced 699 murders associated with gun violence. The total number of deaths due to gun violence in the US was 8583 thus, posting a death rate of 2.91% and 2.75% respectively. In 2014, Texas posted murder rate of 3.5% in every 100000 people ( Lott, 2013) . In contrast, this was a moderate murder rate in relation to other states. Louisiana for instance posted about double the rate of Texas in the same year. These figures clearly pose a major challenge in terms of gun regulation. This shows that gun violence can be mitigated by reducing the number of guns supplied to the public. This will help to restrict the guns to only licensed individuals in Texas and across the United States Additionally, this move will enhance discipline in the handling of guns since serial numbers of the misused firearms can easily be traced to the owner. This process involves restricting the selling of firearms to members of the society found guilty in violent cases. Those charged with a felony case should be restricted from possessing concealed guns. In addition, only licensed firms should be in a position to sell guns to civilians.
Expanding and improving the measures taken in carrying out background checks may be an effective policy change. This will help to ensure that a regular background check is carried out to evaluate if the licensed gun owner is fit enough to have a firearm in possession. Research has proved that this is a viable move since it will help to reduce misuse of firearms in the society ( Lott, 2013) . It will also minimize and hopefully prevent firearms from being issued to individual who has been deemed unfit, or have a history of mental health. The case of Devin P Kelley in Texas proved just a lapse our system. Mr. Kelley displayed violent behavior and was even convicted by the Air force for domestic violence against his wife and infant stepson. He also received a dishonorable discharge from the Air force, but was still able to legally purchase a firearm in which he used to kill more than two dozen individuals in a places of sanctuary. All this happened because the Air force dropped that ball on placing him on the list that would have prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm because his background check did not show his past offenses. This contradicts the American federal law on civilian fire arm regulation. Kelley lived a troubled life but how he was able to access a licensed gun remains a mystery. Kelley’s murder of 26 people in Texan church is a consequence of the lapse manifested in the authorities responsible for civilian gun licensing. If such loopholes in the fire arm regulation policy are not mitigated then the fight against gun violence will not be successful.
The federal government should develop a policy permitting smart technology in gun manufacture. This policy will allow guns to be handled by specific licensed members only. A survey has shown that smart guns can reduce cases of a mass shooting by a very huge margin. This is due to the fact that the rifle used for mass shooting can only be unlocked by a specific gun owner which makes it easy to apprehend such people in the society. This technology can also reduce the cases of accidental shooting since the weapon remains dormant when locked.
In addition, the government should also propose policy that eliminates the restrictions imposed on the financing of gun research projects. In the US, the amount allocated for gun violence research is only 1.6% of the proposed budget for the project. This translates to about 5.3% of the amount budgeted for motor vehicle-related deaths ( Lott, 2013) . This is absurd since the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accident is not greater than that caused by gun violence. The gun violence-related research should be funded enough so as that viable mitigation measures can be reached. This will help to reduce the number of gun-related violence and deaths in the US.
The federal government should also limit the legal immunity accorded to gun manufacturers in the US. Back in 2005, congress passed a law shielding manufacturers and sellers of guns from complaints lodged by gun violence victims ( Thompson, Price, Dake & Teeple, 2013) . This is a retrogressive policy that clearly gives the gun manufacturers and sellers the power to sell guns to unlicensed individuals. The removal of this immunity will help to reduce the cases of gun violence in Texas and America in general.
References
Lemieux, F. (2014). Effect of gun culture and firearm laws on gun violence and mass shootings in the United States: A multi-level quantitative analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences , 9 (1), 74.
Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws . University of Chicago Press.
Thompson, A., Price, J. H., Dake, J., & Teeple, K. (2013). Faculty perceptions and practices regarding carrying concealed handguns on university campuses. Journal of community health , 38 (2), 366-373.
Wike, T. L., & Fraser, M. W. (2009). School shootings: Making sense of the senseless. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 14 (3), 162-169.
