Should Be vs. Is Now

Over the last few days, a number of students at Texas A&M have been competing in jaw dropping competitions, seemingly astounded at the idiocy of students who want guns on campus or the stupidity of students who don't.

From what I have seen of both sides, the two arguments go something like this.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution. An armed campus is safer than an unarmed campus because you have a higher risk involved in opening fire on a class room when half the class might return fire. On an armed campus, gunmen cannot go on the kind of rampage that we saw at Virginia Tech, because students are armed and can stop them.

The reply to this is that first, arming students could be making it easier for psychopaths to get heavy weapons on campus (No one will report someone with an AK if its legal to carry them around). Second, students shouldn't be doing police work, and it would be way too easy for hotblooded teenagers to start throwing lead over emotional and academic problems.

In my opinion, the first argument is correct. It argues from where young people should be. If young people were responsible, I would have no problem with them wearing weapons to school. In early America ten year olds took their father's rifle to school in the winter.

Also, the second argument is correct, for it argues from where we are now. Lamentably, I believe that young people today do not have the responsibility or self control that ten year olds did in the past.

If I may make a proposition, why not arm professors? They have the responsibility lacking in younger students, and a blank fired off every now and then might help keep class awake.

Leave a comment and tell me what you think.