They don’t offer guns in school supplies aisles, but with the new legislation being passed in states like Texas, guns and school supplies might find a common market.

In light of the October 1st shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon and what has become a growing “trend” of university shootings across the past decade, legislation is being proposed concerning the the legality of concealed firearms on university campuses. This push and pull with respect to the possession of concealed weaponry in the university environment  has become the freshest head of the gun debate hydra.

With little fanfare, Jerry Brown, governor of California, recently signed into law a policy banning concealed weaponry on campuses, but many more conservative states are taking a vastly different route. As of August 2016, it will be fully legal to carry a concealed weapon on university campuses in the state of Texas with the appropriate warrants intact. The debate has recently moved to Florida, a traditionally split state in terms of gun control, though recent polls are showing a voter preference for stricter regulations. The fear of helplessness on campuses is driving an emotional debate concerning the safety of students and whether greater security lies in personal firearms or rather in the lack thereof.

People have come out in force–the phrase “gun free zones = kill zones” stretched wide on banners and legislators penning opposing propositions to either abate or restrict existing anti-gun policies. They are taking up the argument that if students are able to carry firearms, they will be more prepared to defend not only themselves but others in the event of an assault upon the student population. However, in the event of a tragic event on campus, the likeliness of a student accurately and effectively employing a firearm to neutralize a threat, without collateral damage, is incredibly unlikely. It is far more likely that a student would inappropriately use the weapon, both inside and out of a mortally-threatening situation. The adrenaline and panic would serve as catalysts of haphazardous behaviors, which could then prove to be a threat to civilians and to themselves. In addition, there is no saying that a non-threatening situation couldn’t invoke similar feelings of ferocity or panic–as overreactions among youth are very possible–resulting in a violent response. Should more weapon-friendly policies come into place, there is no saying if the next headline will bear the words “accident” in its headline.

On a community level, professors are stepping down and students are stepping up, volleying their points and arguing for the circumstance in which their safety would be most assured. According to the New York Times, one University of Texas professor resigned in protest, saying he would “not feel comfortable teaching in a classroom where there might be armed students.” Another was concerned that the “increase in guns could lead to accidental injuries, suicides and a culture of fear in classrooms.”

To stop violence, we must identify the tools and motivations from which it is instigated and suppress them at their source. That means stricter gun control policies, no weapons amnesty on campuses and a national effort to identify the reason behind the trend in university shootings.

You don’t prevent getting stung by a hornet by poking the nest, and you certainly don’t stop school shootings by putting more guns on campus. Fear is a strong tool though, and people grow more afraid with every headline that appears, and every address the president gives in condolence to families of lost and loved students. For some, carrying a gun is the crutch they need to feel safe–the longer stick they need to prod the nest.

There is a positive correlation between violence and weapons. No one gets shot if no one has a gun, and the opposite holds true under pressure. According to a data summary posted by the Guardian in 2012, the percentage of homicides conducted with a firearm in the United States was 66 percent in tandem with an average of 88.8 firearms per 100 people. In contrast, Singapore’s homicide rate with a firearm was a low 5.9 percent, with only .5 guns per 100 people. This indicates that if fewer civilians are in possession of weaponry, fewer violent incidents resulting in death occur.  

At the same time, the culture and precautions taken by the firearm-holding community also matter. According to Time magazine,  “Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita.” Yet despite this, the Swiss violent crime rate is low: “[G]overnment figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010.” This is because the Swiss system emphasizes a greater control of ammunition, removing the violent intent of the gun while still providing a sense of security that possessing one seems to provide.

The statistics stand behind a less-armed populace, emphasizing that the path to security on campuses lies in having fewer guns. So rather than adding ammunition to an already hot topic, why not increase precautionary action on campuses? A metal detector at the entrance to buildings and a more rigorous course in disaster training for faculty are measures that can and should be taken. These initiatives are important to creating a safe and fortified environment for students and faculty alike. However, the truth remains that these precautions would just be adding kevlar to the metaphorical vest. The one true solution to the issue is a more comprehensive and strict gun control policy, and if the metaphor allows, an unloading of the gun.