The Daily Californian’s front-page story on January 25 was on crime in and around the UC Berkeley campus. They report that since a peak in 2006, robberies around the “campus area” had been steadily declining, until this past year, when they started to rise again, according to preliminary data. A possible explanation is that budget cuts have forced the police to reduce their presence, giving perpetrators the peace-of-mind to roam unscathed. But is police presence the only factor in determining whether criminals can operate more effectively?

A simple fact of safety, no matter if you live in Beverly Hills or East Oakland, is that the police are not omnipresent. Not even an unlimited law enforcement budget, with an army’s worth of police, cruisers and security cameras on every street corner would prevent every crime. These robbers know the streets; they know how to blend in and avoid detection, even seconds after committing the crime in broad daylight (see the article).

The painful truth is that residents cannot rely on the cops alone for protection. Ideally, the goal of law enforcement should be to discourage criminals through their presence, and to pursue and bring perpetrators to justice after a crime has occurred, but police are rarely around to stop crimes in progress. Often the difference between becoming a victim and staying safe is the circumstance of the individual. Since law enforcement cannot stop every crime, citizens must take steps to protect themselves. A growing movement across the country is for students to exercise their right to bear arms on university campuses.

The tragic events that took place at Virginia Tech three years ago, and other universities across the country, were a wake-up call to many students, parents, and politicians – college campuses are not as safe as they could be. At universities, carrying a weapon for self-defense is a felony. This encourages crime by telling criminals that everyone in the area is unarmed and helpless. Criminals actively target unarmed and unsuspecting college students for petty theft and violent crimes. When effective self defense is a crime, what else could be expected?

Currently, very few colleges and universities allow students to exercise their Second Amendment rights while on campus; Utah is the only state that explicitly protects students’ rights. While recent legislation and civil suits have indicated pro-gun advocates are gaining ground, they have failed to make progress for students. The Virginia Tech massacre successfully mobilized activists on both sides of the debate; anti-gunners have won in every instance, even in states with strong gun-rights reputations like Texas and Tennessee. Often, they present arguments designed to appeal to emotion, understandably recruiting families and friends of victims to speak out against guns, and evoking visions of “fraternity militias [charging crime scenes] with all guns blazing,” to borrow from Louisiana Rep. Hollis Downs. But these arguments fail to stand up to facts; citizens who legally obtain Right-to-Carry permits are overwhelmingly responsible gun owners, who are fanatically devoted to safe handling of their firearms and regularly practice their skills. The states with the lowest firearm-related homicide rates like North Dakota, Maine, and Vermont also have the most freedom-friendly gun laws. Those rates are similar to those observed in 1900, when gun control laws were rare, and on average were one-eighth of the rates seen today. While regions with higher population density tend to have higher rates of crime, very few cities have opted to relax their draconian gun control laws, essentially holding their citizens hostage in a similar predicament as college campus residents.

While most of America has made great strides towards preserving citizens’ gun rights, California has bucked the trend. Fortunately, legislators recently rejected the false premise that gun shows contribute to local firearm-related crime and struck down a provision preventing these events at San Francisco’s Cow Palace. However, probably more important to California gun owners, they did pass a law requiring ammunition purchasers to register with the state and get fingerprinted, as well as prohibiting the purchase of ammunition online. The former strategy for reducing crime was tried in the past nationally by the FBI and was soundly rejected as ineffective. The latter will most certainly negatively affect an already strained market where ammunition is either very expensive or, as is often the case, simply unavailable. The additional labor and documentation costs increase transaction costs significantly on a market that already has razor thin profits. Indeed, the legislation will most likely only succeed in further restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to self-defense by making ammunition unaffordable and by encouraging the harassment of gun owners.

While not expressly banning firearms, these laws attempt to create a de facto ban, which violates the spirit of the right to bear arms. Still, California does have a few amenities for gun enthusiasts, such as the Chabot Gun Club, a picturesque pistol, rifle, and skeet range, tucked away cozily in the Chabot Redwood regional preserve. The range is perfect for both novice and veteran shooters; the presence of even a few Chabot Gun Club members in and around campus would surely go a long way in aiding our overstretched law enforcement saddled with the impossible task of preventing every crime from taking place. The presence of at least a few self-reliant and accomplished marksmen would surely make criminals think twice about assailing UC students.

Popularity: 3%