Protecting one self shouldn't raise danger

School shootings have been media fodder for years, pretty much exploding in terms of national concern after the tragic incidents at Columbine.

I remember that during my high school years, it was inevitable to watch 24-hour news networks go frantic over finding the solution to these high school tragedies. Students should be closely monitored to watch for ambiguous warning signs, according to some, while others argued that the very same media discussing the issue was responsible for warping and desensitizing our country's innocent youth.

Whenever a new shooting would happen, there would be even more consideration into what caused this to happen, which was definitely justified after such horrific events.

But after the shooting deaths of over 30 students at Virginia Tech last year, the media increased the focus of its attention to the potential dangers that open college campuses face from school shootings as well.

Universities across the country have begun to consider changes to minimize the risks of these kind of incidents from happening on their grounds, such as more advanced and faster warning systems to alert students to the danger or training police and security forces to handle the situation more effectively.

One suggestion I've heard mentioned quite a bit lately has me worried that along with this understandable concern over the danger, many have become unrealistic about what will actually help us be safer at our own schools.

There is an argument some make that people should be allowed to bring their firearms with them to campus, partly in order to protect themselves and others from a school shooter and also not being forced to rely on police intervention that sometimes comes too late.

Their logic basically goes like this: the guns are legal - the Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear firearms - and a student with a legal gun and a current concealed weapons permit should be able to carry their piece with them on campus.

My concern with this line of thinking is that it seemingly forgets that the mere presence of guns can sometimes be dangerous. About three percent of all firearm deaths in the country in 2001 were unintentional, which means that 802 people died due to an accident (according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice).

Another consideration is that statistics show it is more likely for a gun-related incident to end without injury or death if people follow the demands of the attacker rather than trying to be some kind of hero.

Ultimately, it seems that we'd be safer keeping guns off campus rather than allowing the people sitting in our classrooms to have a loaded weapon under their Sioux sweatshirt. I can understand that students at UND and everywhere in the country are concerned about these acts of violence, but I think that adding more tools of violence to the mix hardly solves the original problem.

We have trained police officers who are working with the administration to make sure they can do as much as possible to prevent something like this from ever happening on our campus. Their job is to be the heroes in a case like this, and to do their best to keep us safe.

So I think we should simply keep the conversation going, looking at what causes people to snap and unload their bullets into their own classmates and how the country can do its part to keep us alive and healthy while we get our education.

I've tried to understand this from the other point of view, and I do realize it may be reassuring to have a gun since it can feel more secure than being unarmed if I was ever put into the position of being a victim of a school shooting.

But honestly, barring a "Red Dawn"-like situation in which enemy soldiers are parachuting down onto the quad behind the library, I don't think we'll face a situation where having these legal guns with us will actually be a source of security rather than an accident waiting to happen.