COLUMN: Guns are needed to protect
I am writing in response to the guest column of Sept. 12, by professor Jay Anderson. Like he, I love teaching. Also like he, I sometimes teach a class (USU 1340, Social Systems and Issues) in which we focus on controversial topics that sometimes spark spirited debate, one of which is gun control. Unlike he, however, I do not live in constant fear “that some day, some nut with a gun will decide not to stay cool and will … try to end one of our arguments with a bullet.” Anderson uses a series of logic errors (appeal to pity, false analogy, slothful induction and irrelevant conclusion) in arguing that USU should adopt a “no-guns on campus” policy similar to the U of U’s. While I respect his point of view, I do not agree with his reasoning.
I am truly sorry that Anderson experiences fear when he teaches his classes. The emotion of fear is an unpleasant one that I would wish on no one. However, public policy should not be made on the basis of emotions. Rather, it should be made employing healthy doses of intellectual honesty, critical analysis of factual data, and logical reasoning.
Some people are afraid of heights. Should we tear down the Eccles Business Building so they won’t have to be afraid? The fact of the matter is, fear is sometimes irrational. Irrational fears should be dealt with by the individual, not by changing public policy.
Based upon the evidence of past incidences of gun violence in university classrooms, believing that banning guns on campus will reduce the likelihood of such violence is an illogical conclusion. To my knowledge, there is no incidence of classroom violence involving guns in the recent history of the United States that would have been averted by a “no guns” policy at those institutions where the violence has occurred. In fact, in recent years, nearly all of the universities where gun violence has occurred have had such no-gun policies. For example, one of the most recent such cases involved a disgruntled student at the University of Arizona who, one year ago, walked into a classroom in which a test was being administered and shot several faculty members to death, before turning the gun on himself. After this happened, the U of U used it as a justification for their inane policy war with the Legislature and the attorney general. What they failed to mention was that the University of Arizona had a no-gun policy. Did that policy prevent the tragedy? Obviously, it did not. Thus, the U of U’s use of this instance of classroom gun violence to justify and promote its agenda for a no-guns-on-campus policy was, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. Similarly, a no-guns-on-campus policy would not have saved the lives of JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, John Lennon, or the students at Columbine High School, as Anderson implies would have been the case.
Personally, I tell my 1340 students that I hope many of them are “packing heat” because logically, I should feel safer knowing there are a dozen students in my classroom capable of “taking out” such a crazed murderer before he has a chance to carry out his bloody agenda. (Of course, I say this in jest, since the statistical probability of being killed by a lightning strike is higher than that of being shot in my classroom.) Rational thinking suggests that at least one or two people at the U of A might be alive today had that university not had a “no guns” policy. In all likelihood, the murderer would have still brought a gun on campus. (Someone who doesn’t care about laws against murder isn’t likely to care about a silly university policy.) The only difference would have been that he might not have been the only person with a gun. The students in that classroom might have been able to do more than merely “watch in horror” as the violence unfolded.
For the record, I am not a gun owner, nor am I an advocate of gun ownership. Rather, I am an advocate of logical and rational thinking. I’m not arguing against the conclusion, per se, but rather against the fallacious thought processes and arguments often used to defend it. I find it distressing when allegedly scholarly people at the very top of the educational hierarchy (such as the administration of the U of U), reach and justify conclusions based on irrational thinking. In doing so, instead of setting an example of how educated minds should operate, they do the opposite.
I do not mean to make light of Anderson’s fears. I’m sure they are real and I feel badly for him. It is not my intent to be insensitive or unkind. Nevertheless, the fact is that logically, he should be far more afraid of dying of lung cancer from smoking his pipe than from gunshot wounds in his classroom, since the statistical likelihood of the former is thousands of times higher than that of the latter. Alas, fear is a fickle emotion that is sometimes not compatible with rational thought. Students and faculty at USU should hope our administration will use logical reasoning in deciding whether to follow the U of U’s gun policy – and in so doing biting the legislative “hand that feeds us” $180 million per year – or to leave well enough alone.
Irvin T. Nelson is an associate professor in the school of accountancy. Comments can be sent to irv.nelson@usu.edu.