The idea of sending your children hundreds and possibly thousands of miles away for school can be a scary thought for some parents. But not only for parents; the students as well. This is the first time some teenagers will be independent and have to learn how to support themselves and stabilize themselves on their own. In addition to that, protecting themselves. With the increase in crimes over the past decade or so, this is definitely something everyone is worried about. This is why gun control has become a hot topic in the United States in the past couple years. But even more in depth to that, the idea of allowing guns to be carried on College and University campuses has erupted drastically. Within this debate, there are those who believe that giving students and faculty members something that can protect them will decrease crime and make universities a safer place in all, and then there are people who believe that allowing this at schools would increase crime and and increase gun violence. When looking at both sides, it is clear that allowing concealed weapons to be carried by students on college campuses, with the right precautions taken, will benefit for multiple safety reasons such as personal protection, stopping crime from pursuing, and even possibly being able to save lives in the mean time of waiting for authorities to arrive. These are just a few of the many benefits of this side of the issue.  

The first clear benefit relates to the side of protection and safety. Its simple to really think of how concealed carry could help in extreme situations. According to an article from the Washington Examiner written recently in 2015, Jason Russell claim that concealed weapons would be beneficial in situations such as "Would-be mass shootings cut short by a licensed carrier; an otherwise defenseless female able to scare away a rapist after pulling out her revolver ... fewer violent confrontations because perpetrators worry about their victims having a gun" (Russell). All of these scenarios are legitimately reasonable situations that arise every year on the typical college campus. For instance, most of everyone is aware of the Virginia Tech incident killing 32 innocent college students. Imagine if there were other students armed that had their licenses to securely conceal weapons. More than likely there would have been someone in that scene at that time that could have stopped the threat significantly quicker than the time it took for officials to arrive to the scene when the damage had already been done. However, in opposition to this theory, in an opposition campaign website, they state that arming students would be accountable to no one. They claim that "armed campus law enforcement officers are thoroughly trained to handle crisis situations, when and when not to fire their guns, and how to best secure the campus environment" (Andy). In addition to this, yes it may be true, but they can only prevent a crime from occurring after they are aware of it in most scenarios. In a video from CBS This Morning, a girl claimed that she "wouldn't want to have to send that text to her parents saying "I love you"" but instead she would rather feel like she could protect herself instead of feeling helpless. (CBS This Morning). If an endangered student had the ability to diminish the problem on their own, like in this situation here, they would be more likely to not be hurt or killed or have to send that last text to their loved ones. 

Another benefit that relates to the self defense portion, is enhancing the collective security on campus to deter violence for all. For instance, being able to help with a major issue that is occurring in the same building as you a lot quicker than it would take for officers to arrive to the scene. The reaction time for officers to arrive, especially somewhere on a college campus like a classroom or dorm room, is a lot slower than someone who is already at the scene that has his concealed carry permit and can stop the crime from pursing. Or here's another scenario that occurred at a college that everyone is aware of. Back during the terrible and horrific shooting that occurred at Virginia Tech that killed a total of 32 faculty and students. The chances of at least five of those 32 victims would have more than likely had legal possession of a firearm and would have been able to prevent such a dramatic loss of people from occurring. That is a very good example to show how adding guns to colleges can be beneficial for not only self defense and self protection, but for protection for everyone around you who has the potential to be victimized. 

Some people believe that allowing this would hurt more people than it helps and cause more problems due to the fact that not everyone should be allowed to and be capable of having a concealed weapons permit. I agree with this however, we can examine the issue that arose in Colorado and learn from that. In 2003, Colorado passed the Concealed Carry Act. "According to the Concealed Carry Act, a carry permit is valid "throughout the state," with certain exceptions." (Kopel). Some of the exemptions include private property owners being able to ban guns on their property, guns can be in vehicles in k-12 schools but never outside of the vehicles, etc. This bill has no exemption towards public institutions of higher education. However, in accordance to this, you must be twenty-one years old to be permitted, and most undergraduates were not eligible for permits. According to an article in the Washington Post, "When the Concealed Carry Act became law on July 1, 2003, Colorado State University promptly complied ... and in 12 years of licensed carry at CSU, there have never been any problems caused by licensed carriers" (Kopel). This more than likely was the cause because Colorado made it so you had to be at least 21 years old, pass a fingerprint-based background check and participate in a safety-training class. This just goes to show that the state of Colorado took the right precautions when allowing these students to receive their concealed weapons permit and by allowing it to the right people, and it worked in the benefit of the university. 

Another benefit to the idea of allowing concealed carry on campus is the idea preventing rape and/or sexual assault from occurring. Rape is an issue that has been occurring severely on college campuses all over the world for decades. When looking back at the Act passed in Colorado in 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau looked at the previous 10 years before this act was passed. According to the information provided, 2000 people of the people interviewed had claimed that they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Out of these, 26 claimed that they had used a weapon to resist and in none of those 26 cases was the rape completed. Whereas in Nevada, a bill introduced in 2013 to outlaw carry on campuses. According to the same article from the Washington Post, a rape had taken place at the University of Nevada at Reno in 2013 after the bill was intact. The girls name was Amanda Collins and she had a Nevada defensive handgun license but the University of Nevada at Reno did not allow firearms to be carried on campus. In addition to this, she was raped in a parking garage on campus that had been closed that night. She continued to ask Nevada senators, "How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?" The State Senator responded by saying that "statistics showed that the gun would have been taken from her ... whereas statistics actually show that fewer than one percent of defensive gun use results in the defender's gun being taken" (Kopel). Later it comes about that since the rapist was not stopped during Amanda's incident, he later raped two additional women and murdered one of them. If Amanda would have had her firearm on her, she could have prevented three rapes and the murder of an innocent woman.  

A major issue within this debate is the usage of stereotypes and reasoning behind these stereotypes. As college students, we all have the stereotype that when we as college students drink alcohol, we all binge drink, we all abuse substances, and we aren't mature enough to add weapons into this mix. According to an article that is against adding concealed carry to campuses, their main focus is targeting the youth and then claiming that what needs to happen is "we need to make society safer by reducing easy access to guns by criminals, the mentally ill, the unstable, or the suicidal, and not by making our schools more dangerous by allowing guns to be more accessible on college campuses" (Siebel 337). However, yes we do need to reduce the amount of guns we let criminals get ahold of, but that is something that will be nearly impossible to eliminate. This would be so hard due to the fact that the guns that criminals use to commit crimes are never registered with the state and are most of the time bought on the black market so nothing can be traced back to the criminal. This is something that cannot be stopped. However, something good that he stated in this article was the fact that according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), " ... criminal gun possession is highest for youths eighteen to twenty- four, with nineteen to twenty-one year olds providing an even higher peak within this range" (Siebel 323-324). Additionally, the college student age ranges from 18 to 24 as well. The criminal to non-criminal ratio by college students is heavily weighted more towards there being a lot less college students who aren't criminals. Therefore, how can these students protect themselves against these criminals who are obtaining these weapons illegally if the obtaining of them cannot be controlled? By providing them with weapons to protect themselves if a conflict were to arise against these criminals, is the only logical way to eliminate wrong violence and for the sake of protection.  

Another major issue in dealing with the college gun fight is the way that "Gun-free" Zones are portrayed. If a criminal saw that sign, he/she would be aware that an immediate endangerment to them is not something that they should be worried about right away. They realize that they have time to commit the crime they are trying to pursue and not have to worry about any potential danger coming to right away due to the fact that there is a sign that reads "Gun-Free Zone" right next to him. For starters, if the sign was non-existent, the criminal would be cautious and more than likely hesitate when committing the crime due to the fact that there is potential for one of the students around him to have a concealed weapon on him illegally. Alternatively, if it was legal to carry weapons and it was known by everyone, the criminal would be hesitant in committing the crime for the sake of his own risk. This is a major issue that we see on schools that ban guns and are not apart of the movement yet. 

The last major issue we see is the way media portrays this topic and everything pertaining to it and the ways it influences everyone. For example, "Will students bring their AK-47's and other assault rifles with them to show off while guzzling beer at college keggers?" (Siebel). This seems to tie into the whole issue of stereotypes created by the media to portray your everyday college student. However, in relation to this statement, statistics have shown that in the 12 states that have already issued this change to allow concealed carry on campuses have led to an overall safer environment and have created a feeling of security within the faculty and students at the universities. An incident like the one conveyed by Brian Siebel is not one that would likely occur due to the fact that there would be so many precautions taken in order for him to be able to carry that gun and more than likely wouldn't want to lose that privilege and not be able to defend himself anymore if something were to occur. Truth be told, "This is not the 1890s' O.K. Corral shoot'em up, bang'em up ... These are not vigilante kind of people. There interest is their personal security and the security of their family" (Lacey). That is what these people who disagree with allowing controlled carry need to understand. These twenty-one to twenty-four year old college students aren't worried about "showing off an AK-47", they just want to be able to protect themselves in the right way. 

"The basic philosophical premise for "MoreGuns" (A campaign to allow guns on college campuses) is that self-defense is an inherent right that should not be compromised just because someone happens to be on a college campus ... and argue that college students and faculty should be able to carry weapons for their own protection, particularly since history has shown that colleges can't protect them from assailants" (Birnbaum 7). Therefore, in conclusion, the benefits of allowing guns on campuses outweighs the risks drastically in many scenarios. Statistics have shown that while a crime is occurring, if a weapon was obtained by the victim, the crime could have been stopped and prevented from occurring and doing even more damage to what was already done. While being a freshman in college, this kind of stuff worries me and I wonder how I could protect myself if there was an armed robbery occurring in my apartment complex, located on campus. Obviously there is only so much one can do when they are face to face with someone who has a lethal weapon ready to use forcefully. So for individual protection, self-defense, and as a collective security, I believe that allowing the right people, with the right precautions taken, to obtain concealed carry permits, could create a lot of beneficial aspects to college life for students and even faculty members. 

