Argumentative Essay On Virginia Tech Shooting

Following the tragic Virginia Tech shooting, controversy arose over the topic of Campus safety. Many different theories have emerged as to how to keep college campuses safer, and how to stop tragedies like this from happening again. This complicated and sensitive topic has many sides that all desire the same goal: to keep people safe. It is preposterous to assume that there is one right answer that will keep this type of violence from ever happening again. However, allowing campus carry would minimize the likelihood of an attack, and potentially stop an active shooter on a college campus.

Armed licensed to carry citizens benefit the public by making people safer. Violent situations can be stopped by an armed citizen and their act of heroism.

Potential shooters often take advantage of the poor enforcement in these areas and are able to strike when they please. Obviously, banning guns on campus has not ever stopped a college shooter before however, “ignoring the obvious is typical of arrogant school officials” (Wheeler 618). Allowing campus carry does not eliminate the possibility of an active shooter situation, however it greatly increases the chances of that shooter being stopped and could potentially minimize casualties. A potential shooter will figure out a way to enter a gun free zone with their weapon, weather it is legal or not. Clearly, “Virginia Tech’s no-guns-on-campus policy was an abject failure” (Wheeler 618). Jesus M. Villahermosa Jr. writes in “Guns Don’t Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students” that during a crisis, a gun wielding student or administrator would “leave great potential for a bullet to strike a student or another innocent” (615). This illogical argument neglects the fact that these students are already likely to be shot, and that the gun wielding administrator also has potential to hit the attacker, or stop him from entering the room in the first place. The real problem with allowing campus carry is that the institutions are not “prepared to assume the liability” that goes along with the territory (Villahermosa 615). Again, these law makers are ignoring the obvious, real life