An Inside Look at the NAU Shooting, CA Legislation

Early last Friday morning, a shooting took place at Northern Arizona University. The gunman killed one and injured three others. Naturally, politicians and the media chalked this incident up to another one of the campus shootings that have been taking place across the nation.

While it’s easy to lump all of these campus attacks together, the shooting at NAU wasn’t another mentally ill person gone rampant.

I attended NAU and graduated in May of 2014. Let me provide you some quick facts that the media refuses to address (and some first-hand experiences):

• NAU is a gun-free campus, meaning guns aren’t allowed on campus. The exception is that firearms are allowed to be in a vehicle, as long as they are locked and stored out of sight. The only people who are an exception to this rule are law enforcement officers and those who have written permission from the university to carry weapons. In fact, I had college professors who made it very clear in their syllabus that guns were not allowed in class.
• The shooting took place around 2 a.m. on a Thursday night. At NAU, the weekend begins on Thursday. Most students don’t have Friday classes, meaning Thirsty Thursday is in full effect. Alcohol – not mental illness – played a significant role in this shooting.
• If the shooter was planning a massacre, he had no reason to wait until the wee hours of the morning. Wouldn’t he want to carry out an attack when large amounts of people were around? Most psychopaths do.
• The shooting involved Delta Chi fraternity members who were at/just left a party. When I was at NAU, the frat parties were very stereotypical, just like the kind you see in the movies. Everyone drinks way more than they should, some to the point of blacking out. These types of parties happen all weekend, every weekend. Seriously.
• The shooter is 18, yet he had a .40 handgun. He broke the law already by possessing a handgun. By law, you have to be 21 to own a pistol.

It bothers me to know that my alma mater is being used as part of a ploy by the left to push gun control. This incident is being used as a reason to propose legislation that harms law-abiding citizens. The NAU shooter wasn’t a law-abiding citizen. He had an illegal handgun that he used, more than likely, in a drunken rage.

Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes guns on California college campuses illegal. But what does that do? NAU is a gun-free campus. It didn’t change anything. A bad guy with a gun still came on campus with his firearm. A bad guy still shot (presumably) innocent people.

Legislation, like the bill signed by Brown, doesn’t keep criminals from being criminals. These bills hurt law-abiding citizens. It keeps law-abiding people from protecting themselves from those who fail to follow the law.

The very definition of a criminal is someone who ignores and breaks the law. Creating more laws doesn’t make a criminal suddenly turn the other cheek and follow the rules. These “gun-free zones” hurt the very people they’re meant to help

Flagstaff, the small mountain town I called home, is a quiet, peaceful and serene place. Things like this don’t happen. NAU’s repetuation has been torn to shreds because of a handful of drunken frat boys getting into a fight that turned south. Most of all, the media has failed to mention these small slivers of truth that paint a completely different picture of what happened last weekend.