Psychology professor L. Rowell Huesmann, who studies aggressive behavior and media violence, said Wade is unlikely to win his case due to the precedent set by D.C. v. Heller. He added that the University and surrounding community is better off with the standing firearms ban.
“Numerous studies show that not only when people have firearms is there a greater likelihood of people being seriously hurt during disagreements and arguments, but just the sight or knowledge of firearms being around is what we psychologists call a ‘prime’ to behaving more aggressive and violent,” Huesmann said. “So there’s a lot of studies that show that just the sight of a firearm makes people more likely to think more aggressively and violently than they otherwise would.”
Huesmann said the argument that guns make people safer isn’t backed by data. Instead, he said, the presence of firearms increases the likelihood of gun violence.
“Studies also show that the concept of providing protection is very misplaced — that firearms don’t provide personal protection in the way that people think,” Huesmann said. “In fact, they are likely to lead to accidental shootings and killings of people. The idea that they provide significant protection against nefarious people is just not borne out by the data.”
LSA freshman Macy Hannan said she doesn’t see a difference between the University and other places like churches and primary and secondary schools that are able to regulate firearms.
“From my understanding, my high school was able to (ban firearms), churches are able to (ban firearms), I don’t get why this is any different of a situation and I think it’s something that should be done,” Hannan said.
Hannan said she would feel less safe walking around campus if the courts were to strike down the firearms ban.
“I think it is the University’s responsibility to help keep me safe, and they should be able to keep me safe so then I don’t need to,” Hannan said. “I would definitely feel more scared walking around campus if (the ban is repealed).”