ENGLISH 4-Second Request

Unit IV Color Key:

 Blue: APA document formatting

 Red: Example common mistakes in APA style

 Brown: Paragraph number and label

 Green: Sentence-level number and explanation

Running head: SAFETY FIRST 1

Safety First: Open Carry Firearms on Higher Education Campuses in Arizona

Student Name

Columbia Southern University

SAFETY FIRST 2

Safety First: Open Carry Firearms on Higher Education Campuses in Arizona

Much has been made in the past few years about gun restrictions in the U.S. Proponents

of gun regulation are in a constant state of lobbying for state and federal bills that restrict access

to firearms, whether that takes the form of more extensive background checks on potential gun

owners or longer waiting periods before guns may be sold to individuals. On the other side, the

National Rifle Association (NRA) and other like-minded individuals advocate for looser

restrictions on the sale and carrying of firearms. For these supporters of pro-gun legislation,

owning and carrying guns is a fundamental right—even a civil right. While this national debate

continues to loom over the hot topic of guns, there are breaking news stories, especially within

the last few months, that bring this fundamental debate to the threshold of our nations colleges,

high schools, even elementary schools. Seung-Hui Cho’s massacre at Virginia Tech (April 16,

2007) is perhaps one of the more infamous school shootings, but there are others that are perhaps

more difficult to remember, like the deaths of 27 killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in

Newton, Connecticut (December 14, 2012) (CNN, 2015). Shootings like these in educational

settings have drawn attention from both anti-gun proponents and pro-gun lobbyists, and the State

of Arizona is no exception to this firestorm. The Arizona State legislature has proposed SB 1474,

a gun bill that will allow students and faculty to carry guns on the campus grounds of its three

state-funded universities. Supporters of the bill claim that Arizona is an open carry state, and

those rights should not be restricted simply because the carrier crosses the border of a college

campus. Those against the bill assert that guns have no place in education and that those who

support the bill are only after their own election-year agendas. While the Second Amendment

should be upheld, the educational learning environment should be protected;

SAFETY FIRST 3

therefore, SB 1474 is a detrimental and dangerous bill that has the potential to change the

university campus culture in Arizona state universities.

The Literature Review

In order to better understanding the origins of SB1474 and the controversy that surrounds

it, the history of gun violence in school settings must be taken into account; therefore, a brief

look at some of the events of the past few decades is presented. Further, this review will examine

in greater detail the positions of the two sides of the controversy, beginning with the pro-SB1474

side, which is in favor of allowing open carry on all Arizona state-funded campuses. Then the

position of those against SB1474 will be presented; again, this con side is arguing for Arizona

campuses to remain as they are now: a place without firearms.

A Brief Look at Gun Violence in Schools

The topic of gun control in educational environments exploded in 1999 when Eric Harris

and Dylan Klebold walked into a virtually unknown high school in Littleton, CO, and killed

twelve students and one teacher (Gibbs and Roche, 1999). Questions of how such events could

occur and concerns about the violence of which teens and young adults are capable became the

concern of pressured administrators and horrified parents in big cities and small towns alike. A

string of school gun-centered violence followed over the next few years. Perhaps most striking

though was the way in which this one incident changed the culture of America: clear backpacks,

more metal detectors, and (of course) fear. Cloud (1999) points out some of the extreme, “zero

tolerance” actions taken by schools shortly following the Columbine shootings:

A seven-year-old boy in Cahokia, Ill., is suspended for having a nail clipper at school. A

10th-grader at Surry County High School in Virginia is booted for having blue-dyed hair.

SAFETY FIRST 4

A Minnesota high school nixes a yearbook photo of an Army enlistee in the senior class

because it shows her sitting atop a cannon outside a Veterans of Foreign Wars post.

Far from the exception, these actions considered these many years later seem unreasonable, even

in a post-9/11 world filled with uncertainty.

The Argument for Open Carry Everywhere in Arizona

However, in Arizona, the newly proposed SB 1474 would not seek to disarm students; on

the contrary, the bill would allow students the right to concealed carry on state-funded university

campuses. Proponents of the bill assert that such a measure is long over due. According to an

NRA poster that were taped to message boards all over The University of Arizona campus,

“[s]elf-defense is one of the most fundamental rights of every human being.” Further, the poster

states that the NRA has worked diligently over the past 25 years to expand the right of open

carry: the NRA has been “working for passage of fair Right-to-Carry laws, expansion of carry

reciprocity between the states and the elimination of many ‘no-carry’ zones that only affect the

law-abiding.” For the NRA, one of the major private-public backers of the SB 1474, the

restriction of concealed carry on college campuses is an infringement on these basic rights. The

flyer goes on to state the following:

Those who oppose campus carry [of firearms] argue that educational institutions should

be treated differently, based on emotional claims that places of higher learning are

somehow exempt from real-world violence. But the truth is, despite current prohibitions

on legally carrying on campuses, crimes already occur on campus, and the right to self-

defense from those violent acts should be respected. (NRA, 2012)

The NRA is correct. In fact, given the number of school-related shootings in the past few months

alone, it would seem that a student’s chances of being shot on campus seem greater than if that

SAFETY FIRST 5

same student were walking the streets of the community. From larger cities to small towns, it

seems that the size of the community does not matter: the violence of a shooting can occur

anywhere. However, even with this fact floating in the backs of students’ minds, students must

still attend classes and while it would seem obvious that lawmakers on both sides want student

safety, they just see the means to that safety from different sides of the same coin.

The Case for Campuses as Unique

Eugene Sander (2012), the Interim President of the University of Arizona, released the

following statement about SB 1474: “I have been a gun owner for all my adult life, and am fully

supportive of the right to own a gun. However, having faculty, staff or students bringing

weapons into classrooms and other campus activities will do nothing to make our campus safer.”

While Sander does not go into detail about what this newly proposed bill does have to do with,

he makes his case on the basis that 50,000 students, staff, and faculty attend the campus daily,

along with over 20,000 visitors annually. For Sander (2015), the educational environment is a

“unique atmosphere that is dependent on open and vigorous debate. Introducing guns into

classrooms would dramatically and negatively impact the ability to engage in constructive

dialogue.” In other words, even if the NRA does not believe that the university is a unique

atmosphere, as Sander and others do, then there is still a possibility that introducing the right to

carry concealed weapons on campus might lead to a change to the very culture of the university.

While Arizona lawmakers continue to debate the merits of SB1474, the public debate

grows, as this issue concerns both public safety and citizens’ rights. Because the three state

universities in Arizona are publically funded, the debate about allowing open carry is very much

a concern held by the communities in which these universities reside. Those who are in favor of

the change to an open carry status on university campuses wish (a) for the open carry laws of the

Para 5: Con side

This citation is correct. Amanda did not have to include the

author’s first name, but it is fine to do so the first time that

the author’s name is mentioned.

Amanda

has made a

mistake.

Each time

an author is

included,

the year of

publication

must

follow. So

this should

read as

follows:

“While

Sander

(2012)…”

Amanda

has made a

mistake.

The actual

year of the

publication

is 2012. Be

careful

about

editing for

errors like

this in your

own paper.

Para 6: LR

Conclusion

S1&2:

Amanda

creates a topic

sentence that

encapsulates

the concern of

the

controversy,

and she

includes a

second

sentence to

increase

understanding.

S3: Amanda

summarizes

the two main

arguments of

the pro side,

which favors

the passing of

SB1474.

SAFETY FIRST 6

State of Arizona to be extended to all areas, which includes all publically funding institutions,

such as the universities, and (b) for the open carry of firearms to act as a deterrent to gun-related

violence on college campuses. For those who are against the passing of SB1474, many of whom

occupy the space of the university as professors, students, or administrators, the question of

allowing the open carry of firearms is no actual question at all: there is simply no need to involve

weapons in a space that is meant for open dialogue and debate. In as much as the Second

Amendment should be observed and upheld in the fashion adopted by the State of Arizona in the

form of open carry, the university setting is unique in that concerns about open and free

expression should be at the forefront—essentially making this bill a potentially dangerous one

that should be reconsidered or withdrawn completely.

S4: Amanda

summarizes

the main

argument of

the con side,

those who are

against the

passing of

SB1474.

S5: Amanda

reiterates her

own position

by reasserting

her thesis

statement.

Note that the

thesis

statement is

slightly

different than

the original at

the end of the

Introduction

paragraph.

SAFETY FIRST 7

References

CNN Library. (2015, October 19). 28 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history fast facts. CNN.

Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-

history-fast-facts/

Cloud, J. (1999). The Columbine effect. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/

magazine/article/0,9171,35098,00.html

Gibbs, N. & Roche, T. (1999). The Columbine tapes. Time. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992873,00.html

National Rifle Association. (2012). Arizona self-Defense on campus [Flyer]. NRA: Author.

Sander, Eugene. (2012, March 20). UA President opposes campus guns bill. KGUN-TV.

Retrieved from http://www.kgun9.com

An APA list of references should be

labeled “References,” NOT “Works

Cited” or “Bibliography.”

The last

name is

presented

first; then the

first name

and middle

(if present) is

included as

initials. An

ampersand

(&) is used

for more

than one

author. Last

names are

always

presented

first.

Proper nouns

always begin

with a capital

letter.

Amanda has

made a

mistake. This

capital letter

“D” should not

be capitalized.

Titles in APA are presented in sentence-case

capitalization, meaning that only the first

word or any proper noun should begin with a

capital letter.

Amanda has

made a

mistake by

including the

full name of

the author

here.