If you haven’t heard about it yet, UF is being sued by a gun-rights group for not allowing on-campus residents to keep guns in their dorm rooms.
The group, Florida Carry, Inc., successfully sued the University of North Florida over its ban on guns in cars on campus. UF amended its policy to reflect this ruling, but Florida Carry thinks guns should be allowed elsewhere.
But it looks like they need some target practice. In spite of a press release touting the impending lawsuit, there’s been some delay in serving the court papers to UF because of typos, including a wrong ZIP code, the Alligator reported.
Of course, on-campus residents aren’t prevented from having guns in the first place. Firearm owners can store their weapons safely with the University Police, checking them out when they need them.
However, that defeats the purpose of gun ownership — at least in the eyes of gun-rights activists.
The logic is that, in the event of some violent crime unfolding, a gun owner may prevent it by killing the perpetrator. Of course, in this fallacy, the logic makes sense.
But that’s the problem. It’s unlikely some altruistic do-gooder with a concealed carry license will be around the corner every time someone commits a violent crime. Think about it. How many mass shootings ended with the shooter dead at the hands of an armed vigilante?
What’s more disconcerting about this line of thinking is the idea that anyone on the street has the wherewithal to discern whether a criminal needs to be met with deadly force in the first place.
Police officers follow guidelines and train to know how to deal with criminal activity, and they still make mistakes. In September, police injured two tourists in Times Square while shooting an “emotionally disturbed” suspect after he put his hand in his pocket and pretended to shoot at the officers. In the end, he was brought down by a Taser.
It’s a matter of semantics. Gun-rights activists believe firearms can be a lifesaving tool. They’re anything but that.
They are tools designed to take lives, whether it’s a rifle for hunting deer or a revolver for self defense. And that’s what it really comes down to for gun rights — the ability to defend yourself. I get that.
But thinking that more guns will solve the problem of violent crime is like thinking you can cure someone addicted to pain pills by giving them more to ease their suffering. It only makes the problem worse.
I’m not saying we should ban guns, but thinking guns save lives is like thinking gas can put out a fire. It doesn’t work.
The university is right to have such a strong policy against guns on campus. Its methods don’t inhibit students from owning firearms: Instead, they promote safety by having weapons stored securely.
A few years ago, a ban on tobacco products on campus was put in place. Smoking cigarettes is, of course, legal.
But no one is suing to allow Catherine to smoke a Camel on her way to class. It’s understood that cigarettes harm others, too — so they aren’t allowed. Seems pretty logical.
Guns don’t save lives. Guns take lives. Bringing them into dorm rooms will do nothing but encourage their use.
Instead, we should focus on other ways to keep campus safe.
Considering the lack of armed conflict on school grounds, it seems there’s no need for gun-wielding vigilantes.
[Justin Jones is a UF journalism senior. His columns appear on Thursdays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 1/30/2014 under the headline "UF gun policies promote campus security"]
