A year ago, my column arguing against a gun-friendly Georgia State campus was published here, in the The Signal. I argued that while our urban location leaves us prone to crime, our campus crime records present no plausible reason to furnish our campus with guns.
My argument did not discredit the student or question the student’s ability to be responsible enough to possess a gun. Instead, I questioned the individual’s ability—and that is where legislators against the allowance of guns on campus have failed.
Along with several legislators, many Georgia residents think students are too young to carry a gun on campus. They’ve garnished their argument with adjectives like “immature” and “irresponsible.” Along with a Georgia poll conducted by survey spearheaders Abt SRBI, where 78 percent opposed gun-friendly campuses, one woman’s words may have summed up their fears. Forty-four year old Veronica Connell said that college students are much less likely to be ready for that responsibility, topping the assertion off with “That’s just asking more trouble.”
Quotes like Connell’s are birthed from exhausted stereotypes about youth and their behavior. These stereotypes are largely and weakly supported by the portrayal of youth in the media and feed a rooted presence of fear in our nation.
At the forefront of these stereotypes is the “bohemian” nature of the student. Viewed through the scopes of “seasoned” adults, we are seen as having a “wild and irrational” nature, prone to habitual outbursts for the sake of rebellion. The student is said to harbor an irresistible urge to act thoughtlessly and impulsively in the face of adversity, giving life to the saying “shoot first, ask questions later.”
This perception is fed by statistics like the ones reported in a 2012 summary report from the Georgia Crime Information Center, revealing that crime rates were higher among individuals between the ages of 17 and 29 and, in fact, showed a steady decrease from age 30 and on. The reason for their perceptions seem obvious.
What isn’t obvious is the high presence of crime among individuals who are supposed to have the least amount of guns in possession. This is the elephant in the room and its stench begs the question: “Why are more people murdered among an age group that isn’t even old enough to posses a gun?” The short answer: They’re protecting themselves in an environment where they have been given no means of protection.
This is not to say that every crime committed among young individuals is in defense or that a crime committed in defense is warranted. But the absence of the opportunity to protect oneself only seems to invite harm to oneself or someone else.
While you have to be only 18 to purchase a handgun, you must be 21 to carry it in public. So, unless the majority of the murders reported in the summary happened in homes and vehicles, it’s safe to say that the gun presence among these young individuals is largely illegal.
This illegal presence of guns should not be charged to the perceived “rebellious” nature of young individuals but instead to the treatment of them. Individuals who are encouraged and expected to possess contraception are conversely deemed too irresponsible to possess a weapon. They are old enough to join the military and defend their country but denied the opportunity to prove that they can be both a productive and responsible citizen. The lack of reasoning here should be considered.
The fight against guns on campus is a result of a highly generalized misconception of young individuals. The student has been clumped into one identity, the “wild and irrational freethinker.” So while our campus possesses a prismatic sea of students, all from different walks of life and in different parts of life’s journey, we are viewed as replicas, cut from the same cookie-cutter.
We should not be held responsible for everyone in our age group. This convenient generalization only feeds stereotypes and steadily strips what power young individuals have, placing it in the hands of the older and presumed-to-be wiser.
We should be regarded as the individual adults that we are and not held to half of what defines adulthood, the other half exclusive to those 30 years and older. Assuming that a 30-year-old would be less likely to harm someone with a gun than a 21-year-old omits significant factors, including character. Background checks and gun training results should reflect the individual’s character, not age. And while character develops with age, this development is not guaranteed to be positively progressive.
Again, I do not encourage the presence of guns on campus but I do not feel that age should be a determining factor in whether to allow guns on campus. To do so would simply be ageist and evidence of a rather thoughtless arrival to a conclusion.
