Guns don't kill people; however, faculty might

I have a friend who is a professor at the University of Nevada-Reno. I ought to call him and ask about this:

The University of Nevada system is one step closer to letting professors, faculty and staff carry guns on campus.

It's a controversial plan that the Board of Regents agreed to on Thursday. Some students and staff are concerned it may not be the best idea.

The tragedy of Virginia Tech is still fresh in the minds of many in the collegiate world and campus police departments from Reno to Las Vegas are trying to find a better solution. But students are dumbfounded by the plan to arm teachers.

"So there would be no reason for a teachers to run around, just try to play hero with a gun," said Chris James, junior.

Still the Board of Regents plan would allow faculty take a 21-week course in Carson City. That class would cost more than $3,000 per person and the universities would pick up the tab. But it would use a legal loophole to essentially deputize the employee. That way they wouldn't break the law.

Right now it's a Class E felony to carry a gun on campus.

I have never understood the logic whereby gun violence can be reduced by arming more people. The deterrent factor, in my opinion, is vastly overrated.

I also think the argument that Virginia Tech or Columbine or any other such tragedy could have been avoided or mitigated if teachers or faculty had been armed is flawed: no one knows what might have happened, and besides, it's hard to believe anything would have stopped the attackers (especially if they've locked the armed faculty in classrooms).

Actually, I'm kind of surprised this didn't happen in Florida first. After all, we're the home of "Shoot first, ask questions later."