THE UNIVERSITY adopted a new regulation concerning the use of concealed firearms last weekend, superseding the policies already in place and bringing the University legally up-to-speed with schools such as George Mason University. This was done in response to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's opinion about current weapons policy, issued last summer per the request of state Sen. Emmet Hanger, Jr.
According to Cuccinelli, the previous weapons policy did not prevent non-student possessors of concealed-carry permits from bringing concealed firearms into on-Grounds buildings and events. The University's new regulation closes this loophole and prohibits weapons from on-Grounds facilities and events, with law enforcement officials being the only ones exempt from the regulation.
The only real change brought on by this regulation is that concealed-carry permit holders are now legally unable to bring firearms to on-Grounds buildings and events. But do more stringent gun control laws make us safer, or do just the opposite?
The debate about gun control is certainly nothing new. The idea that stricter gun control laws will reduce violent crime has been advocated in the United States, with varying degrees of success, since the nation's founding. The anti-gun side of the argument gains steam whenever a tragic event like Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacre occurs, and people join together to blame the nation's lax gun laws for the deaths of the innocent. If the perpetrators of the horrendous crimes had not been allowed to legally possess the firearms used to commit the murders, gun opponents say, the massacres could have been avoided. Ample evidence, though, suggests just the contrary.
One can look to the United Kingdom for an example of the ineffectiveness of gun control legislation. During the 1980s and 1990s when crime rates were steadily on the rise, the British government began to implement stricter and stricter gun laws. These, however, were unable to curb the country's trend of increasing crime.
This same phenomenon also is evident in the United States. Washington D.C., which has one of the strictest gun control policies in the nation, also features one of the nation's highest rates of violent crime and in the past has been called the "murder capital of the United States."
This correlation between gun control and violent crime stands in complete opposition to the ideas of those who would advocate firearm regulation. In addition, with more relaxed gun laws seem to come fewer violent crimes. Florida adopted a concealed carry law in 1987, and its rates of violent crime and homicide have dropped dramatically since then.
It is true that anyone can Google "statistics proving gun control works" and find numbers proving just the opposite, but this issue of gun control and crime deterrence can be looked at from a localized, common sense level, as well. Regulations like the one passed at the University make it illegal for all individuals, aside from law enforcement officials, to possess firearms, concealed or otherwise.
But does this stop a criminal who is already intent on committing a crime? I cannot see an individual intent on murder deciding not to carry out his attack because he fears being in violation of the weapons regulation. Criminals, or would-be criminals, by definition, have no regard for laws or regulations. Regulations like the one just adopted by the University only remove weapons from those who are legally trained to use them for self-defense.
This was the case for Bradford Wiles, who was a Virginia Tech graduate student in 2006 when he wrote a column for The Roanoke Times titled "Unarmed and Vulnerable" about the school's gun control policy. In the piece, he described the school's rules banning guns on campus, which prevented Wiles, who was registered to carry a concealed weapon in Virginia, from arming himself for self-defense. Though he was trained to use a firearm, Wiles's safety was entirely in the hands of armed law enforcement officials while on Virginia Tech's campus.
Should it be made more difficult for people with criminal records or suspected mental conditions to get their hands on deadly weapons? Certainly. But the reality is that these people, intent on carrying out horrendous crimes, are not going to pull up short when they hear about the new gun regulations in town.
There will always be people out to hurt and kill others, and no amount of red tape will stop someone determined to do so. It is those in danger of being hurt or killed who need to have the means to stop such attackers and to deter tragedies from ever occurring.
Sam Novack's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.novack@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | May 16, 2024Retirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | May 16, 2024My time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | May 15, 2024My time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
