I usually judge the crime rate in Charlottesville by the number of e-mails I receive or Facebook statuses I read referring to a recent incident. Using this flawless system, I have thus concluded that the crime rate in Charlottesville has risen by at least 7 million percent in the last couple weeks. The recent surge in violent crimes in Charlottesville has shaken our community. In time, this recent crime wave will subside and most of us will return to our old ways of blithely disregarding many of the safety measures we have been told to use in the past weeks. In spite of this, these recent events have offered us an opportunity to truly analyze the safety procedures of the University.
What stands out is that all the advice from University authorities seem to involve a third party. Walk with a buddy, call the police, call SafeRide: All these measures force us to rely on friends or others over whom we have no control. When an individual is confronted with a life-threatening situation alone, who or what can they turn to for help or defense?
Our very own Thomas Jefferson once said, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." Your more enterprising University student will undoubtedly spring forth from their midterm malaise to make the rather obvious statement that, yes, it was a different time when TJ roamed the Lawn. There is also the idea that as enlightened, civilized intellectuals of the 21st century, we have no need for the primitive trappings of frontier society such as firearms. The University's weapons policy states, "The possession, storage, or use of any kind of ammunition, firearms, fireworks, explosives, air rifles and air pistols on University-owned or operated property, without the expressed written permission of the University Police, is prohibited." So generally speaking, the typical student over 21 who has passed all legal barriers for gaining a conceal-carry permit cannot carry a firearm on Grounds - a right that is supposedly protected by Virginia law and the U.S. Constitution.
I am sure a sizable majority of you reading this have rolled your eyes after reading that last sentence thinking, "The University can lawfully regulate who can or cannot carry firearms on Grounds, so this is contravening neither state law nor your antiquated and perhaps legally spurious claim to own guns." These individuals have a point. The University can legally regulate who can or cannot carry guns on Grounds. The University does, however, allow non-students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on Grounds. So why deny only students, often the victims of these recent crimes, a constitutionally protected right to carry a gun for self-defense?
The common reasons for prohibiting concealed weapons among students are obvious. Resident Advisor Simon Svirnovskiy offers his opinion: "I'm very much against conceal and carry. I worry about guns in the hands of students and their misuse, especially if the students are impaired with alcohol." These concerns are legitimate. But using this logic, we should limit gun use in poorer cities and from the more impoverished among us because, after all, these individuals are far more likely to commit crimes than others.
Students who support concealed carry are not calling for every citizen of age to be issued a handgun. What they are merely asking is that students be treated withequality under the law in that we answer to the state and federal laws first and the statutes of the University second.
Others may object using the reasoning that, if an individual carrying a gun is robbed, he will instinctively shoot and kill the offender with no regard for human life. This argument does not take into account that, according to the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, having a contingent of citizens legally allowed to carry-concealed weapons often dissuades violent crime among strangers in the first place, making the above scenario less likely overall. Other studies in criminal justice have discovered that women carrying concealed firearms are nearly three times more likely to escape an act of violent crime unscathed than women who do not resist, and four times more likely to escape unharmed than women who use some other means of self-defense. Though these studies will hardly quell the controversial debate of gun control, it is evident that there is some level of security gained by carrying a concealed firearm.
The image of a gun owner today is one of either a criminal or an unintelligent redneck waiting for the first opportunity to use deadly force on anyone for any reason. The reality is far different. Your average American gun owner is oftentimes a person who is merely concerned for his or her safety and the safety of loved ones. Such people pray that they never have to use their guns on anyone for any reason whatsoever. They merely want to give themselves and those they care about a fighting chance in the face of violent crimes. This is a chance that the University is denying many of its students. Our "constant companion" is ours no longer.
Pietro Sanitate is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | YesterdayUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
