Last week’s news stories of how a Tarleton student shot a loaded gun in his dormitory brought to mind an incident that made big news in Boston when I used to live there. A man was put on trial for shooting someone with a handgun. A jury found him not guilty by reason of self-defense—and the judge promptly sentenced him to a year in prison.
The man had legally bought and licensed his handgun in another state before bringing it to Massachusetts, where mere possession of a handgun at the time brought a mandatory one year prison sentence. Only a pardon granted to him by then-Governor Michael Dukakis—himself a believer in gun control, but not a zealot on the issue–allowed him to remain free.
Could that happen here? Not soon—not with laws permitting concealed carry and recognizing the right to self-defense. But there’s no reason to think these laws will exist forever. Under the right circumstances—or perhaps wrong, depending on one’s perspective—things could change. The Tarleton shooting could be a first step down a slippery slope leading to more gun control—perhaps someday to the sort of gun control that will deprive someone of the right to protect himself with any sort of gun.
This may sound farfetched. After all, news accounts seem to be minimizing last week’s on-campus shooting. It’s been reported the shooting was accidental, nobody was hurt, the student promptly reported it, blah, blah, blah. No harm, no foul.
But what happens when the next accidental shooting produces a victim—a student wounded or even killed? Think it can’t happen here? Last year there were about 1,500 accidental shootings nationwide. There’s no reason to expect the laws of human negligence and stupidity to be repealed on the Tarleton campus. Last week’s shooting is proof that it can happen again.
Readers of this column know I opposed campus carry—obviously ineffectively—last year when it was before the state legislature. But having lived or worked on college campuses since 1968, I’ve come to question the wisdom of making it easier for those coping with the stress of grades, relationships, illicit alcohol, or other student-related pressures to bring guns onto campus. And in almost 50 years as a student or teacher, I’ve yet to be in a single classroom where the activities therein could be facilitated with a loaded gun.
The wisest course of action right now would be to repeal campus carry before anyone gets actually hurt or killed, but those who’ve advocated campus carry no doubt sincerely believe that this incident, and the fortunately small handful of similar incidents elsewhere, are not enough to justify its repeal. But it should at least be modified to require stricter rules for the storage of guns when not being used for legitimate purposes. In other words, if it can’t be ended, at least have it mended.
And those who oppose restrictions on campus carry should consider that further incidents—especially those in which real harm is done to students, faculty, or staff—may provoke a backlash that could lead to even greater restrictions down the line. The current Republican-dominated legislature won’t enact such restrictions, but in the not too distant future Texas could trend Democratic. After all, the Republicans’ Anglo base is shrinking as a percentage of the electorate, while the numbers and percentages of African Americans and Hispanics, who already support the Democrats by overwhelming majorities, grow. A purple Texas is not likely this decade—but not out of the question next decade or the one after that, to be followed by a blue Texas. The legislature of a purple or blue state may be far more amenable to gun control than our current red-state legislature.
There’s no question—in my mind, at least—that law abiding citizens should have the right not only to have guns in their own homes but to use them in defense of themselves, their families, and their property. But we must recognize that neither the right to keep and bear arms nor any other right is absolute, and that to abuse any right is the best way to provoke and empower those who would seek to limit it or do away with it entirely. So even if campus carry is neither limited nor done away with in the near term, those who seek to exercise the right of campus carry today should develop a new and better understanding of the possibility that if they don’t control their own guns, the government may someday come in and do it for them—possibly to the point of labeling one who uses a gun for self-defense a criminal. In short, if you abuse the right to keep and bear arms now, you may someday lose it.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville and taught politics and government at Tarleton since 1987. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990 to the present). He was Mayor Pro Tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He is a member of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and the Stephenville Rotary Club, and does volunteer work for the Boy Scouts of America. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
The original news article reported it as an “accidental discharge”. I much prefer the more accurate term, “negligent discharge”. There is no excuse to have an ND while removing a firearm from the carry holster and placing it in the safe.