Editorial: Gun violence

Public Safety consists of two divisions, one of which includes sworn police in the state of New Jersey who have graduated from police academies and are trained in firearms. These officers have an intimate knowledge of the campus that would allow them to respond quicker and more effectively than the Princeton police in the event of an emergency. While firearms are not necessary for the vast majority of Public Safety functions, the Board believes that Public Safety is best equipped to provide the immediate response that is critical in emergency situations. Giving sworn Public Safety officers access to firearms in the event that there is a shooter on campus would dramatically increase their ability to protect students and limit the loss of life that could occur. Currently, because of its lack of arms, Public Safety’s protocol is to form a perimeter in the event that there is a shooting on campus. Arming sworn officers would allow them to actively intervene in order to confront a shooter.

While some might feel that giving Public Safety officers access to guns would change campus culture, we feel that the fact that these guns would not be carried at all times would adequately address these concerns. These guns would be stored in Public Safety headquarters and only used in times of emergency. There is no need to have officers armed at all times, and the Board recognizes that doing so would cause some students discomfort. We feel that the creation of an armory would not alter student-Public Safety relations while still improving campus security. In addition, the University could publish statistics on how often the guns were drawn in order to assure students that these weapons were only being used in appropriate situations.

Giving Public Safety officers the ability to quickly access guns is an important step to ensure that the University is prepared to respond to a threat to the lives of students. In the event of an emergency, certain sworn officers could access the armory and report to the scene of the incident. Thankfully, Princeton experiences a relatively low level of crime, but it remains possible that tragedy may strike our campus. In the event of an emergency, Public Safety is best equipped to respond and the University should give them the tools to do so. While we hope there is never a need for these weapons, we should not let our sense of security stop us from being prepared.

Dissent:

In their editorial response to recent acts of terror and gun violence, the majority readily assumes that guns would enhance campus security and that the University should respond to America’s prevailing gun culture with more guns.

Arming Public Safety officers would not enhance Princeton’s campus safety but compromise it by increasing the chances that a firearm is mishandled and by changing students’ relationship with Public Safety. While we recognize that sworn Public Safety officers would undergo regular gun training, we also recognize that access to guns on campus, even in a secure arsenal, could lead to the misuse of weaponry. As Princeton is not situated in an area that regularly experiences violent crimes that necessitate campus or Princeton police to respond with lethal force, it is more likely that a situation would arise in which a gun would inadvertently harm an innocent person rather than defend someone. This risk alone is reason enough to minimize the presence of guns on campus. If an on-campus emergency necessitated an armed response, Princeton police, dispatched from the local station about a mile away, would most certainly respond in a timely manner.

Moreover, the majority underestimates how the presence of even stored weapons might fundamentally change the student body’s relationship with Public Safety. Misunderstanding among students of Public Safety’s arms-carrying policy and fear of encountering an armed Public Safety officer could easily make students reticent to reach out to officers in the case of an emergency.

Finally, the majority fails to consider how arming Public Safety officers, even under the strictest of policies, would situate the University as a participant within the U.S.’s prevailing gun culture. As an unsafe and underregulated culture that promotes violence over protecting individuals, the U.S.’s gun culture needs to be curtailed rather than supported. Princeton should not be contributing to this gun culture with more guns, but instead focusing its resources on other methods that can promote campus safety without resorting to the use of arms.