Last Friday, The University News led with a story about the sexual assault on Lindell Boulevard that occurred on early Saturday morning during Family Weekend. Suggestions are mentioned in the article about how such events can be avoided, including the advice to “walk in pairs” and that security will be increased around the campus perimeter. I, however, have a solution that I believe will solve crime problems involving Saint Louis University: allow guns on campus.
Missouri state law is very favorable to citizens who wish to carry protection: One need only be 21 years old and have a clean criminal record. But it seems to me that somehow, Missouri state law does not apply to SLU property; the campus is gun free. (While we’re at it, can we change the drinking age on campus, too?)
Beyond what I see as a violation of my rights as a U.S. citizen and a Missouri resident, the facts are quite clear on the benefits of relaxed, responsible gun laws. Two reputable economists from the University of Chicago’s Law School, John Lott and William Landes, published a 52-page report/meta-study detailing how “shall-issue” and “concealed-carry” laws are the most effective deterrents to crime.
Some interesting facts from this report include the following:
Guns are used defensively against criminal attacks 760,000 to 3.5 million times per year, studies and polls show.
The National Crime Victimization Survey by the Department of Justice found that the risk of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for an unarmed woman than for a woman with a gun.
A comprehensive study of concealed-carry laws has indicated drops in murder rates by about ten percent and drastic drops in other violent crimes.
Virtually never has a permit-holder been involved in the commission of any crime, let alone murder.
Between 1977 and 1995, there was nearly double the number of murders per 100,000 people in states without “shall-issue” laws than those with them.
What do facts like this, and those that fill the remaining pages of such reports, tell us? Gun-free zones are a joke. If someone is wicked enough to take a human life, do you think signs saying “Saint Louis University is a gun-free campus” is going to deter him or her? To the contrary, it is a giant indication of a mass of nearly 11,000 unarmed, defenseless victims.
The shooting at Virginia Tech over the summer unleashed a wave of gun-control literature and calls for tighter restrictions on guns resounded throughout the press. But Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone, was it not? I guess Cho forgot about that on his way to Norris Hall!
The National Rifle Association has done more to protect people from violence than any left-wing pacifists have. The “About Us” page on www.NRA.org details the commitment to education and training for the safe use of firearms. A program they created in 1988, known as the “Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program,” has taught more than 12 million elementary school children to not touch guns and report them to an adult. What have the anti-gun groups done? Demand that the guns be kept in lockboxes. Now you at least have a blunt object to strike your assailant! Why even bother with the gun inside?
Gun-free zones do not save lives; responsible people with guns do. The idea of a potential victim packing a Beretta is a far greater crime deterrent than legal punishments that the criminal might not even have to face. If the innocent student walking Lindell that weekend was armed with a weapon and the knowledge to use it, or even if that were a possibility for the assailants to consider, this horrible crime may have never happened.
The moral of these stories? Guns don’t kill people; people do. Bad guys will always be able to obtain a weapon if they want to; the least we can do is allow the good guys to have one too. This is my case for making SLU a gun-friendly, and therefore much safer, campus.
Brett Kostrzewski is a freshman in Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology.
