I fully support Tom Crawford’s column in the May 5 edition of The Times. He contends Gov. Nathan Deal is not justified in signing the “campus carry” bill into law. However, some of his contentions could be used to defend the governor’s decision.
A male student carrying a handgun or shouldering an assault weapon could help in feeling empowered. He could impress the opposite sex with his newly acquired accessory. Now he has the means to be a hero in the face of danger.
Carrying a weapon to the classroom could discourage professors from any liberal persuasion. If they lectured on the science of evolution, the reasons for global warming or argued for freedom of the press, a gun could dampen such openly biased statements.
A female student carrying her Smith & Wesson while on a date would send a somber warning. Another female who tried to entice her boyfriend away from her would find her own existence endangered. If this other female was a “campus carry,” the conflict could easily be resolved with a shootout in the cafeteria.
If students begin losing their lives because of this new law, the Georgia legislature would likely become concerned. What if a student is too poor to buy a gun for protection? Concerned about justice, the legislature could decide, at George’s expense, to provide guns to thousands of money-challenged students.
Even though the law prohibits gun-carry at sporting events, student housing or in administrative offices, it doesn’t mean a student couldn’t ignore the prohibition. Students are free to believe that the Second Amendment supersedes other laws.
This law signed by the governor will create new jobs and grow the economy in Georgia. Students over 21 will begin buying guns, holsters, bullets, and lockable storage boxes.
It will require hiring more campus police. Additional nurses and doctors will be needed for health care centers. Even gun supporters might concur that counselors be hired for those unfortunate souls who have a pathological phobia about “campus carry.”