On Friday, Oct. 12, The University News printed a commentary titled “Student Shopping List: GUN” written by a fellow Saint Louis University student. Figuring it would be an article retaliating against recent gun violence seen in schools, I read with interest. I couldn’t have been more wrong. I was shocked to read these words, “Allow guns on campus.” Not believing my eyes, I continued to read as shock gradually turned to anger and then to disappointment.

As always with gun advocates, the individual claimed that Second Amendment rights were being violated by SLU, as the University does not allow the carrying of firearms. Don’t get me wrong. I own a shotgun myself. People should and do have the right to own a firearm. But I certainly won’t be bringing my gun to campus!

Ask yourself this: Do most jobs allow you to bring a gun to work? Obviously most do not. So then why should SLU? In the interest of public safety, they can use such restrictions on their property!

This is also another disturbing example of “my rights outweigh yours” that our country seems to struggle with. How about we consider everyone’s rights? Like my right to go about my business on campus free of fear. I want to be free of fear from being killed by a student packing a gun that would be allowed as suggested. How about the instructors? Wouldn’t they want to be free of potential intimidation and retaliation from students? I would like to think so.

The Second Amendment is for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, true enough. But that is for a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state. Note that it says the state, not your individual self. I think the idea in mind when this was written was for readiness against foreign invasions or perhaps our own government getting out of control. Until that day comes, keep your guns at home.

Now the supposed “facts” in supporting this idea of guns on campus soon followed. One source noted was a report done by John Lott and William Landes. In a search, anyone can find that John Lott is quite controversial in his methodology in these surveys. Some go as far as calling his statements and actions unethical.

One such example can be found at timlambert.org/lott. The National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime in 2004, including Lott’s work. It found that “there is no credible evidence that ‘right-to-carry’ laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.”

Naturally, Lott fired back defensively. But when the press asked for proof in the data of the first study, it was conveniently lost in a “computer crash.”

Even so, you don’t need a Ph.D. to look at these “facts” and scoff. Guns are used defensively against criminal acts 760,000 to 3.5 million times? That’s like saying a multi-car wreck on the freeway has maybe 5 to 450 cars involved! Not a very precise fact now, is it?

Another supposed fact was that the risk of serious injury is 2.5 times greater for unarmed women, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Department of Justice. Upon looking this up, I could find no such fact. In truth, the NCVS report is cold hard statistics. No such facts were to be found in the document.

Another fact cited a “comprehensive study”. What good does that do if we don’t see what the study is and performed by whom? Thus that fact is baseless and irrelevant. Even the NRA’s web page was mentioned with such positive overtones that it made me feel like this whole article was nothing more than a NRA advertisement!

The article goes on to say that apparently Seung-Hui Cho forgot that Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone, like SLU. For one, in the light of that recent tragedy, such a comment is tasteless. Additionally, Cho had to go out and get those weapons himself. But instead, we should allow guns to be carried on campus by potentially another “Cho” or even more than one?

I actually found something I did agree with. Gun-free zones do not save lives; responsible people with guns do. It is true that gun-free zones are not the end-all solution and will not fully prevent an armed person with bad intentions. That’s where the “responsible people with guns” come in: Campus security. They should be thanked for the risks they take in their profession.

Common sense is the best weapon we have. More guns are not the answer. They can lead potentially to more violence, death and even increase in suicides. Proposing guns on campus is shocking, disturbing, and shameful.

There is a saying I know of to sum up my stance on this. In John 18:11, Jesus says, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

So lay down your swords and approach all with olive branches and open arms.

Anthony Cozad is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences.