Reading Friday’s Emerald, I was not surprised to see how the University is largely unprepared for just about all students’ worst nightmare: an active shooter on campus. Thankfully the reality, statistically speaking, is low for such an event to occur on campus. The article by Mr. Roll (“University, law enforcement prepare for camps shooting scenario,” ODE May 26) really underlines the current debate the Department of Public Safety and its role in law enforcement. I’m certain most, if not all, have heard the arguments and counterarguments for making DPS sworn officers.
During the State Senate hearing a few weeks ago, I was asked to participate in a debate. I declined, as I felt I was unqualified to offer my opinion on the matter because of my lack of knowledge on the intricacies of the issue. Regardless of your thoughts on whether or not DPS officers should become sworn officers, last Friday’s article highlighted that it simply doesn’t matter if DPS is sworn in or not. Eugene Police Chief Pete Kerns, in that same committee I was to appear at, admitted, “This is a reality we are not well prepared for in Eugene.”
Granted, with DPS being able to carry guns, the argument can be made that with a quicker response time the killing may be ended sooner rather than later. This is certainly something to consider, as the quicker law enforcement can engage a shooter, the less innocent people can be shot. But why are students forced to rely on the protection of police and DPS? If the SWAT team was required to resolve a situation, it could take upwards of 40 minutes for them to arrive and assess the situation. Ten to 12 minutes after he began his final assault, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho had killed 31 people including himself. Police arrived just in time to hear Cho shoot himself.
It is without question that if a shooting were to happen, people would die, and the loss of life would be large. Which is why we need, as a community, to have an open discussion on legally carrying concealed weapons on campus. This view may seem radical to many, and had someone spoken to me in 2007 — even after the shootings at Virginia Tech — I still would have been hesitant to even consider having students armed. I wholly understand why some people have apprehensions to letting students be armed on campus and in the classroom.
The arguments are many, and I’d be remiss if I were to attempt to simplify this incredibly complex problem or paint those against guns in a negative light. Nothing can be accomplished in that manner. I believe the problem lies with the fact that there isn’t even a debate on this. I would like to lay out some reasons why it is good idea to have armed law-abiding citizens on our campus.
People should be able to be in charge of their own protection. If an individual wants to take precautions to protect themselves, they should be able to do so as long as it is in accordance with the law. Nobody else is obligated to come to your aid if you’re in crisis — not even the police, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling stating that the police are in place to protect “society at large” not any one individual(s). Even if it weren’t the case, as demonstrated above, the response time of police is too slow to prevent people from dying.
The current policy restricts those who wish to protect themselves from doing so in an effort to stop those who do not follow the law already. Gun-free zones are indeed only gun-free because good-natured people who wish to obey the rules abide by them. Many, if not most, mass shootings take place on areas deemed “gun-free.” In reality, all gun-free zones accomplish is the disarming of those who do good and leave them at the mercy of those who wish to do harm. I implore you to view the testimony of former Texas Rep. Suzanna Hupp in relation to the effects that policy and legislation restricting carry can have.@@Hupp is spelled right@@
It has already proven to be effective with no rampant or daily shootings. Ironically, five years earlier to the Virginia Tech massacre, two students at Appalachian Law School were able to retrieve their firearms from their respective cars and stop a student who had shot and killed three people, thus ending his spree and saving untold numbers of other students and staff. On the other side of the country, Utah currently lets those who are able carry a weapon on campus, and to my knowledge there hasn’t been a single report of a shooting on any of Utah’s public campuses.
I cannot hope to address all the points in such a limited space, but I hope to get the ball rolling on this topic — one that is currently under review in the Oregon Supreme Court, and I look forward to discussing this issue with all involved.
Andrew Saldana
University student