Fire Arms on Campus: Ban for Less Violence, or Legalize in Sense of Protection?

Because of a sudden and intense incident on campus, many activists to support the gun agreed that not only professors but also students should be permitted to carry guns on campus. The Human Rights Act stipulates that Americans have the right to possess weapons. This is sacred to the American people, not being infringed or deprived. However, those who commit a violent crime or a suicidal tendency cost money. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6,300 people were injured due to self injuries due to 2010 injury.

In fact, due to the constitutional right to weapons, increased violence within the campus, the difficulty of campus police management to protect students and faculty and staff, and the attracting of criminals to places without guns, It should be allowed on campus. That's not all. High school teachers should be allowed to bring weapons. As a future French teacher, I do not want to die as a victim, but as a brave small warrior fighting for my life, and my students, I will be responsible

FIRE's efforts on the protection of basic rights on campus are focused on four areas: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and association, freedom of conscience, proper procedure on campus and legal equality. Eventually, FIRE attempted to end the debilitating and deadly act of paralyzing students and teachers by attracting public attention to this problem and protecting helpless people when abusing power on campuses nationwide .

Universities have legal and ethical obligations to deal with sexual harassment and sexual violence on campus. The vast majority of people are also legally and ethically obliged to keep freedom of speech. If the university adopts the appropriate definition of sexual harassment, these responsibilities do not need to be nervous. The Supreme Court stipulates clear standards for student harassment while prohibiting harassment and protection of speech. In the case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), the Supreme Court confronted the question of when the school could sue against the damage caused by student harassment. After expressing "intentional indifference" against serious and ongoing student harassment, the court judged that the elementary school owes the responsibility correctly. In reaching this conclusion, the court set out the definition of student harassment.