Summary of Zenobia Harris’s Argument
Zenobia Harris argues in an article in the VSU student newspaper The Spectator titled, “Guns on Campus Will Hurt Not Help,” that students and faculty carrying guns on campus will do more harm than good. She presents a selected study from The RAND Corporation as well as citing a CNN article, balanced with a counterpoint to show that the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to high stress situations involving firearms.
Harris compares the argument from Concealed Campus that students “need to know how to protect themselves from an immediate threat” (Harris), to a study completed by the RAND Corporation that concluded “on average, officers hit their targets only 30 percent of the time” (Harris). This statistic would trouble students and faculty worried about untrained or minimally trained coeds and professors armed while dealing with a dangerous threat. The armed would be “do-gooder” could potentially miss their intended target and cause some unintended collateral damage. Harris contrasts a pro concealed carry argument from a Nevada legislator, Michele Fiore to a CNN article. …show more content…
Michele Fiore offers up that if “Young, hot little girls” (Harris), carried on campus they would no longer be potential targets of sexual assault. When compared to CNN’s article claiming that “campus carry increases the likelihood of a rape victim dying by more than 500 percent” (Harris), could deter some professors and students think twice before carrying a firearm on their person.
Harris goes on to say that “there are a variety of ways students can stay safe without having to wield a firearm, and most importantly, there are campus police and staff whose main charge is to protect the students.” Harris continues to say that we as students should let the proper authorities do their job and continue on with their studies. This would seem as a fair point to many students and professors alike.
In her opinion piece, Zenobia Harris shows the potential unintended consequences of carrying a firearm on campus. She provides solid statistics from notable organizations such as the RAND Corporation and CNN and a refuting argument from a state legislator. She ends her argument stating that protection of students should be left to the police on campus, and that students should find other means of protection other than firearms. The potential negative outcomes really do seem to outweigh the positive aspects of carrying a firearm on campus. Harris’s argument is very contradictive. She begins her argument by stating that police only hit their targets thirty percent of the time in high stress situations and ends it with saying that students should leave their protection in the hands of these same officers. She then follows that up with trying to convince the female population of the school against conceal carrying on campus with a CNN statistic citing that sexual assault victims are more likely to die five hundred percent more than if they had not carried a firearm at all. While this statistic is very compelling it is derailed by leaving out crucial information that the study could have contained. She also fails to mention that while many police officers do lack necessary training in dealing with high stress situations, many students including myself are former veterans and gun enthusiasts that have been trained in the use of firearms in high stress and dangerous situations for many years. I myself own many firearms and have more
Zenobia Harris argues in an article in the VSU student newspaper The Spectator titled, “Guns on Campus Will Hurt Not Help,” that students and faculty carrying guns on campus will do more harm than good. She presents a selected study from The RAND Corporation as well as citing a CNN article, balanced with a counterpoint to show that the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to high stress situations involving firearms.
Harris compares the argument from Concealed Campus that students “need to know how to protect themselves from an immediate threat” (Harris), to a study completed by the RAND Corporation that concluded “on average, officers hit their targets only 30 percent of the time” (Harris). This statistic would trouble students and faculty worried about untrained or minimally trained coeds and professors armed while dealing with a dangerous threat. The armed would be “do-gooder” could potentially miss their intended target and cause some unintended collateral damage. Harris contrasts a pro concealed carry argument from a Nevada legislator, Michele Fiore to a CNN article. …show more content…
Michele Fiore offers up that if “Young, hot little girls” (Harris), carried on campus they would no longer be potential targets of sexual assault. When compared to CNN’s article claiming that “campus carry increases the likelihood of a rape victim dying by more than 500 percent” (Harris), could deter some professors and students think twice before carrying a firearm on their person.
Harris goes on to say that “there are a variety of ways students can stay safe without having to wield a firearm, and most importantly, there are campus police and staff whose main charge is to protect the students.” Harris continues to say that we as students should let the proper authorities do their job and continue on with their studies. This would seem as a fair point to many students and professors alike.
In her opinion piece, Zenobia Harris shows the potential unintended consequences of carrying a firearm on campus. She provides solid statistics from notable organizations such as the RAND Corporation and CNN and a refuting argument from a state legislator. She ends her argument stating that protection of students should be left to the police on campus, and that students should find other means of protection other than firearms. The potential negative outcomes really do seem to outweigh the positive aspects of carrying a firearm on campus. Harris’s argument is very contradictive. She begins her argument by stating that police only hit their targets thirty percent of the time in high stress situations and ends it with saying that students should leave their protection in the hands of these same officers. She then follows that up with trying to convince the female population of the school against conceal carrying on campus with a CNN statistic citing that sexual assault victims are more likely to die five hundred percent more than if they had not carried a firearm at all. While this statistic is very compelling it is derailed by leaving out crucial information that the study could have contained. She also fails to mention that while many police officers do lack necessary training in dealing with high stress situations, many students including myself are former veterans and gun enthusiasts that have been trained in the use of firearms in high stress and dangerous situations for many years. I myself own many firearms and have more