I think I have made it pretty clear at Haemet how I feel about gun control and big red targets. Oops, I mean gun free zones.

Well, the gun control debate has finally reached Cornell’s campus, and it’s about time!

The Cornell Republicans impressed me by displaying a series of signs on the Arts Quad last week. The signs discussed the recent tragedy at NIU and how it was not prevented by a gun free zone. The final sign was a picture of a rubber duck that said something to the effect of: “We’re just sitting ducks.” I didn’t have my camera with me or I would have taken pictures to post.

The Cornell Daily Sun covered the display in a pretty fair manner: C.U. Republicans Call for New Gun Policy

My favorite part:

Although prevalent on the Arts Quad during the morning hours, the removal of many of the signs by the afternoon conveyed a sense of disapproval from some members of the Cornell community who support the University’s “gun-free zone” policy.

Actually, what was conveyed to me was that the sign-takers are more disapproving of free speech and open discussion — concepts the university typically claims to appreciate. Honestly, that is one thing I can’t seem to understand about the left… their rabid response to the mere mention of the word ‘gun’. It’s like saying ‘gun’ is going to get somebody shot.

Anyway, there is a debate going on at this moment in the Cornell Undergraduate Student Assembly. The Chair of the Cornell Republicans and the elections director of the S.A. submitted a resolution regarding concealed carry on campus. The language of the resolution is straightforward and obviously stands no chance at passage at this wonderfully open minded institution.

Whereas, recent campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University represent an intolerable failure of the “gun-free zone” to ensure the safety and the security of the students within it;

Whereas, the restrictions inherent to such a zone — despite the good intentions of the state and university officials in enforcing them — have proven time and again to hurt those they are intended to help and help those whose intent is to hurt;

Whereas, Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. of Utah signed legislation in March of last year allowing concealed carry on all public university campuses in his state, and, in so doing, proved that taking such a step is neither radical nor impractical;
Whereas, there has been no reported rise of gun-related violence on Utah campuses in the preceding months, leading us to believe that the fear of lawfully obtained firearms is unfounded and misdirected;

Whereas, the oft-quoted Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part, that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”;

Whereas, we, like one of that amendment’s greatest advocates, believe that any such infringements merely “make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants,” and that “they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man” ¹;

Be it therefore resolved that this assembly strongly urge the administration to take whatever action is necessary to allow for concealed carry on campus;
Be it further resolved that, should the administration refuse, we ask President David Skorton to instruct the proper authorities to prepare a detailed position paper on this issue delineating the reasons for that refusal, whereupon this assembly will then determine its own response.

Upon hearing that gun control would be debated at tonight’s S.A. meeting, the Sun published a news article and an editorial. You have to love their journalistic integrity by saving the opinion for the editorial and sticking to the facts in the news article… or, did they?

S.A. to Vote on Weapon Policy

I’ll grant that the article is remarkably clear and limited to the facts. However, I will file a small complaint against the editor’s choice of the word ‘weapon’ for the headline, which is arguably vague and encompasses more than the more accurate alternatives, ‘gun’ or even ‘concealed carry’. “S.A. to Vote on Gun Policy” or “S.A. to Vote on Concealed Carry” are both more accurate and fair.

The editorial is where all the good stuff is: Way Off Target

This afternoon, two representatives will introduce a resolution to the Student Assembly that calls on the Administration to advocate for the ability to carry concealed weapons on campus.

In the wake of the recent spate of shootings at Northern Illinois University and elsewhere, and at Virginia Tech last year, campus Republicans have suggested that “concealed carry” rights on campuses are the best way to deter such shootings and the best way to stop them once they begin. They argue that we are our own best protectors; that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right; that unarmed citizens leave themselves dangerously open to attack.

They’ve got it all wrong.

Well-meaning they may be, but the College Republicans and their supporters are — on this issue — way off target.

There are places in the United States where gun culture exists; where it is appropriate; where it is even necessary. Neither Cornell — nor any university — is one of those places.

Some may feel comforted by guns; for most, they are instruments of fear. More than anything, a university is an open society — it is a place that values free inquiry, unhindered debate and giving full credence to the kind of opinions that make people cringe.

Pardon my interruption, but I have a few questions.

Why are guns instruments of fear? Is it possible that many people are merely ignorant about guns and gun-related policies? Is it possible that the vast majority of the Cornell population that grew up in NYC / Long Island / Philadelphia are most accustomed to guns in the hands of criminals rather than in the hands of law-abiding citizens? But, of course the all-knowing Sun is correct: guns are the bad guys in crime, not the criminals themselves.

In this spirit, weapons of intimidation have no place here. If, in the last analysis, we remain less safe, it is a risk well worth taking.

Oh, right. Weapons of intimidation. You know what? Hell yeah I want anyone who thinks about coming to Cornell with an intent to kill to be intimidated. I want them to wonder, does that cute girl have a gun? What about that elderly gentleman? Is this really worth it?

Secondly, I am reassured by the Sun’s determination that being less safe is better than having guns. At least they recognize that we are less safe without guns. I was starting to wonder if they completely lacked any logical reasoning skills.

That said, school shootings are not to be trifled with. Murder is not to be trifled with. While an amount of risk is incumbent upon a free society, its members also share a responsibility to mitigate that risk.

The Republicans present a false choice between concealed carry and abject vulnerability. There are more moderate options that keep us safe even as they preserve another kind of security: the comfort that comes with the assumption that your lab partner isn’t packing heat.

There are certainly areas in which Cornell can do better. More CUPD officers walking beats would go a long way towards fostering a sense of safety on campus. And adding to Cornell’s impressive record on mental health services would do much towards preventing potential shooters from developing in the first place. Cornell ought to be a place where no community member ever feels so despondent, so forlorn, so unloved as to resort to violence.

These are great ideas and steps that ought to be taken. But honestly, they are not going to stop someone who is determined to kill. Will CUPD officers be in every classroom, every office, every dining hall? Is Cornell going to develop some mind-reading device that will determine when a student needs mental health services and when they don’t? Will the university just force all students to go to counseling, just in case?

Granting the likelihood of their good intentions, the Republicans and their allies have, over the past week, put forth a good faith proposal to make our campus more secure. But to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would trade their liberty for security deserve neither. And an armed campus infringes on the liberty and comfort of many, far more than it increases the freedom and comfort of a small few. Concealed carry is a well-intentioned but misguided response to campus shootings. The S.A. should not pass a resolution in its support.

The editors’ use of Benjamin Franklin is somewhat ironic, but mostly disturbingly ignorant. The Cornell Daily Sun believes in a world filled with sunshine and rainbows without guns where no one gets hurt. They are willing to sacrifice the liberty of law-abiding citizens to move toward that unrealistic goal of absolute security. In the meantime, criminals always find ways to get guns and somehow to get them past the invisible borders of gun free zones, where they will find tens of thousands of unarmed faculty, staff, and students just sitting like ducks on a big red target.

Tell me, what about the liberty and freedom of the students at Virginia Tech? The shoppers Omaha mall? The Christians at churches and missions in Colorado? The students at NIU? In exactly what ways are those victims enjoying their liberties and freedoms now?

Answer: they’re not.

If even one person in each of those situations would have possessed a gun and the knowledge to use it, the death tolls could be lower. But, God forbid we make any of the peaceniks at Cornell uncomfortable.