Column: The facts behind gun control need to be cleared

Following the publication of my column titled “Guns at Virginia Tech would be Disastrous,” individuals in favor of permitting concealed handgun permit holders to pack heat on campus lambasted my piece. Ordinarily, I think that it’s counterproductive to go “tit for tat” with my fellow columnists and readers, but having been accused of misleading readers and manipulating fact, I feel obligated to defend my opinion and not let our readers be fooled by a fanatic wing of the gun community.

Nearly 50 percent of all full-time college students binge drink and/or abuse drugs at least once a month (according to the American College of Health). Regarding collegiate gun owners, that number rises to 66 percent. The ATF reports that the ages of 18-24 (especially 19-21) are the “prime years” for persons to commit violent gun crimes, including homicide.

One reader implied that I have a “very, very low opinion of the maturity and moral character of the students at VT;” nothing could be further from the truth. I love Virginia Tech and my experience there would have been drastically different had it not been populated with the high-quality people who also made Tech their home. Regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, the numbers are what they are. It’s not that I have a low opinion of my fellow students, it’s that I’m not blind to what goes on in college. If you’ve never seen college students (including Tech students) drink to excess or use drugs, then you must have spent a lot of time away from the general population. I’m not excusing drug use or binge drinking, but the fact is that it happens, frequently. So, to introduce more guns in an environment where alcohol and drug abuse occurs at an elevated percentage and not think we will see an increase in gun-related crime is a naive and irresponsible point of view. College is statistically the most emotionally volatile part of a person’s life. How can a rational person think it logical to introduce guns to a demographic where emotional health is flighty and there is a highly elevated percentage of alcohol and drug use?

The United States has more intentional homicides committed with a firearm than any other western nation (per the UN Survey of Crime Trends 2001-2002). In 2002, 68 people were intentionally murdered with a firearm in Switzerland, and 14 were killed in the United Kingdom. In 2002, 9,369 people were intentionally murdered using a firearm in the United States. I admit to being a poor math student, but I am capable of differentiating big numbers from small numbers, and 9,369 is a substantially larger number than any of the others. I’m not writing with the goal of repealing the Second Amendment, but I’m tired of seeing gun fanatics manipulate data and fight the logic of common sense. As far as I’m concerned, they can argue per capita percentages, defensive statistics (by the way, 2 percent of handgun usage in crime is defensive), etc but it all comes down to common sense—just look at the numbers. People lie and manipulate often, but numbers are brutally honest.

It is astonishingly easy to obtain a concealed carry permit in Virginia. Criticizing my thought that it’s “easy to obtain a CHP in Virginia,” my colleague who wrote a rebuttal article stated the following: “to get that piece of paper (referring to my reference of a CHP), I underwent eight hours of classroom training as well as spending an entire day at the shooting range demonstrating that I understood firearms safety.” I don’t know how all of you feel, but I can’t think of anything besides the most menial of skills that can be mastered in eight hours. If you think that someone can arrive at the gun range at 9 a.m. and be an expert by 5 p.m. when he or she leaves, then you’ve been watching too much TV. Despite what Hollywood portrays, handgun accuracy is something that is obtained after many, many hours of practice. Eight hours is hardly a sufficient timeframe to deem someone expert enough to carry a handgun and legally use it in a public place. Also, Virginia is what’s called a “shall-issue” state, meaning that if someone who applies for a CHP passed the background check required by the Brady law, the state “shall issue” that person a CHP, should he or she request one. Regarding the “extensive criminal background check” my colleague referenced, it’s virtually the same one that occurs when someone tries to buy a gun, only the subject is fingerprinted, must demonstrate competency (which we already established as inadequate), and may have to wait up to 45 days. Since his mental health deficiency was not reported, had Cho applied for a permit, the “extensive” background check would have again overlooked him, and he would have been issued the permit (per VA Code 18.2-308 (E)(10)).

The larger issue, besides the number and percentage arguments, is how guns make people feel. One reader accused me of “pandering my own insecurities” by trying to keep guns off campus, but I’m not so insecure and paranoid that I feel the need to strap a weapon to my side. I feel like it’s just the opposite, you’re “pandering” your insecurities on the rest of us, and using what happened in April as leverage. I hate debating hypothetical situations, but I’m so sick of hearing about how CHP carriers could have prevented Cho’s massacre. I made a blanket statement in my previous column, calling CHP carriers “cowboys” (which I regret making because it insulted many law-abiding citizens), but one reader went so far as to comment that he “wished [he] had been in that classroom with [his] sidearm” and claims he would have “provided the murderer with a third eye and prevented most of the killing.” While it was not my intent to offend responsible and rational gun owners (of which there are many), it’s clear that some CHP carriers do see themselves as cowboys, and will even publish their own “hero/savior” fantasies as if they had any likelihood of plausibility. Here’s some math for the CHP savior scenario: 3 percent of Virginians have a CHP. Roughly 50 percent of Virginia Tech students are under the age of 21 and cannot legally own or possess a handgun. So, we are talking about 3 percent (assuming I can apply the state-wide percentage to the campus…in reality, it would probably be much smaller) of 50 percent. So, we’ll equate that to 1.5 percent of students having a CHP, and one of those students would have to be in Norris Hall at 9 a.m. (roughly less than .005 percent of the Tech campus was in Norris at the time of the shootings), and must have remembered to bring his/her gun that day. In summary, a student from a 1.5 percent demographic of campus would have to have been in Norris, which at the time, consisted of roughly 0.005 percent percent of campus, reducing the likelihood to the most miniscule proportion. My logic dictates to me that such a scenario is simply not plausible, and certainly not worthy of being the backbone of an argument for CHP carriers to carry guns on campus.

Also, the feelings of other students and faculty are largely ignored by those who favor guns on campus. I am speculating, but should the university poll students and parents regarding guns on campus, I’m confident the vast majority would be wholeheartedly opposed. I polled several of my former professors, and (requesting anonymity) their response was overwhelmingly against guns on campus. “If guns were allowed in my classroom, my students and I would be more afraid of violence, not less, and that fear would be palpable in the classroom—fear that would undermine both teaching and learning” said one instructor. Another professor, one who has taught at Tech for 30 years said “I'm shocked that anyone would propose this as tolerable in the first place” and, “to have weapons present anywhere but the hands of law enforcement is anathema to me.” These people in favor of bringing guns onto campus often speak of their “right to carry” and how self-defense is their “right,” but they seem innately content with ignoring the “rights” of their fellow classmates and teachers to feel safe in their environment, and open to ideas and debate, without the fear that guns bring to those who are unfamiliar with their presence.

I am not in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. I know the majority of gun owners are responsible and exemplary citizens. It is not my intent to “mislead” readers or list facts that are “flat-out incorrect.” All of my facts are from legitimate, non-partisan and unbiased sources. To the readers of this article, I ask of you this: many gun fanatics will regurgitate data that disputes my findings, but I encourage you not to believe them, or me. Rather, I encourage you to educate yourselves and follow the logic of common sense. Research the data for yourself, and use data from government sources, rather than interest groups. I am confident you will come to the same conclusion that I did: guns simply don’t belong in our schools.

Every so often, someone like Cho will come along, and violate the peace that presides in our schools, and people will use that as an excuse to push for giving guns to the “good guys” so they can defend themselves and us, should a situation like that arise again. As I’ve laid out in this article, such a decision could spell disaster for the Virginia Tech community and only ensure that guns will be involved in more campus incidents for years to come. I’m not asking for a drastic change in gun laws, or to ban guns altogether, I’m asking that we adhere to a long standing policy of no guns in schools, and not let ourselves be intimidated by those would use fear to coerce our administrators and politicians into thinking guns in the hands of students would make us safer.

School shootings are not likely to disappear in the future, but you don’t solve the problem of gun violence by introducing more guns, it’s flawed logic. We had the opportunity to grow and learn in an environment that was free from gun violence. We cannot let a rare incident, awful as it was, instill in us the same fear and mistrust that the shooter harbored. Instead, we must keep guns out of our schools, so that our children and grandchildren have the same opportunity that we did: to learn and grow with the purpose of becoming an instrument of peace. How can we hope for a more peaceful world, for ourselves and for those who proceed us, if we are going to allow instruments of violence into our centers of learning? I would like to conclude this piece with a quote from National Rifle Association EVP, Wayne LaPierre: “Firstly, we [the NRA] believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period.”