January 22, 2010
Colorado State University, like any university, should be in the business of serving its paying students. The students are the customers. They are the only reason we need the university. It isn’t about faculty members and administrators, who are hired and paid only because students need them.
Yet, it appears the needs and desires of students may be the least of concerns among faculty, administration and CSU’s Board of Governors.
University administrators Wednesday released a draft of a gun control policy that would ban all firearms from campus. They like it, because it makes the university just like most others. Even students and faculty members with concealed carry permits would be stripped of their guns. It’s not as if guns have been a problem CSU. It’s just that most who comprise the average faculty and administration of the average university are liberal, and share an indefensible anti-gun ideology.
Members of the university’s Board of Governors have made clear their plan to enact the ban Feb. 23. Faculty members have voted in support of the ban.
All the powers that represent the interests of faculty, staff, administration, and the university’s government — the people paid to serve the interests of students — favor the ban. Yet student leaders — the adults elected by students to carry out their interests — voted 8-1 against the ban.
Steve Titus, student body president of the CSU-Pueblo campus, was surprised to see his fellow student leaders oppose the ban.
“There is this idea that this would infringe on someone’s constitutional rights, but it really isn’t,” said Titus, as quoted in the Denver Post. “We’re just trying to do everything we can to make classrooms safer.”
Yes, but your actions would have the opposite effect. Most CSU students, and all but one of their representatives, don’t want the ban for one basic reason: They don’t want to become sitting ducks for violent criminals. They don’t want to become the next victims, such as those at Virginia Tech, watching helplessly as some psychopath shoots up a university, unimpeded for hours, in direct violation of a gun ban. They don’t care much about left wing or right wing ideology. They just want to be safe.
Nearly ever mass shooting in this country has occurred in a gun-free zone, such as the one CSU’s governing board plans to create next month with the blessing of faculty and administration. That’s because maniacs on suicidal mass murder missions have amazingly dismissive attitudes toward gun bans. They do respect the bans, they just don’t obey them. They respect the fact these gun bans guarantee them thousands of defenseless human targets who can’t shoot back. Rapists and deranged stalkers also have a fondness for campus gun bans. Do the math: Law abiding people obey gun bans; dangerous criminals do not.
(Please vote in poll to the right. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)
This common sense observation, and the fact most violent campus gun crimes are committed in gun free zones, rings hollow with CSU faculty members, administrators, and board members. That’s because they have a statement from the Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators that says no credible statistical evidence demonstrates that allowing concealed weapons reduces crime on campus. It’s a meaningless statement, devised only to facilitate gun control. There’s no credible way to conduct a study because nearly all college and university campuses are gun-free zones.
Nearly all consist of far too much violent crime. Common sense tells us Seung-Hui Cho, the lunatic who shot up gun-free Virginia Tech, could not have functioned for most of an entire day if the gun ban hadn’t eliminated all meaningful resistance.
If CSU approves this gun ban, pray the campus doesn’t someday become the playground for a psychotic armed to the hilt. If it does, blame the death toll on CSU’s Board of Governors, and those who supported them in leaving students defenseless in a bold rejection of their will. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board
Our view editorials uphold a proud tradition of advocating individual freedom, constitutional law, faith, and limited government. Editorial opinions have no connection with The Gazette’s news division, and do not express the views of all Gazette associates.