Few things in American politics evoke such a knee-jerk reaction, such shrill appeals to naked emotion, such insistence to “Please think of the children!” as guns. From the misunderstanding and irrational fear and hatred of the objects themselves to the moral posturing by both supporters and opponents of their regulation, there is something about guns that seems to inhibit rational thought.

The state of California prohibits the open carrying of firearms, loaded or not, by those who are not in law enforcement and requires those who wish to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun attend safety training, pass a background check and demonstrate “good cause.” Numerous counties throughout the state have interpreted “good cause” as “current specific threats,” meaning only those who can show that their lives are being directly threatened can obtain a concealed-carry permit, making California a “may issue” state: The state may issue permits at its discretion. But in a 2-1 decision last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a victory to defenders of the Second Amendment in its decision in Peruta v. San Diego.

The constitutionality of the right to keep and bear (as in, own and carry) handguns has been well established by the Supreme Court in multiple cases, including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In Peruta v. San Diego, the 9th Circuit ruled that by both prohibiting open carry and by requiring such a high standard for concealed carry, California had made it functionally impossible for most people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Following the decision in Peruta v. San Diego, the state of California has essentially become a “shall issue” state: The state shall issue permits so long as the criteria set forth by law are met. This has made it far, far easier to legally exercise the right to bear arms throughout much of the state. It is a major step in the right direction. But I would argue that we should go further: Those with a concealed-carry permit should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on public universities in California, including UC Berkeley.

The efficacy of strict gun control policies is a bad joke. The last 30 years have seen a steady liberalization of gun laws coinciding with a steady drop in violent crime, including gun crimes. Some of the most retrogressive areas, those that bitterly cling to their gun control — areas such as Maryland, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and until quite recently, California — have some of the highest rates of violent crime, which have persisted for years after these gun control laws were implemented. Other nations that have taken drastic, illiberal steps to ban guns have seen little success: Britain and Australia both saw increases in the number of violent crimes, including those involving guns, after their respective bans on handguns.

Thus, it would seem that those hoping to restrict people’s legal right to guns are on the wrong side of history. Be that as it may, under California law, it is still the case that “any person who brings or possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of … a public or private university or college” without the “written permission of the university or college president” is in violation of the law. But with concealed-carry permits now available to most law-abiding Californians, we should allow those with permits to carry their weapons on college campuses. Obviously, private colleges and universities should have the right to decide for themselves whether they will allow concealed carry on their campuses; they are, after all, private institutions. But public universities, including UC Berkeley, should not be allowed to deny law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights on campus.

There is more to this argument than just personal liberty — although that alone should be reason enough. Those who favor strict gun control often point to the recent rise in mass shootings, where one or two gunmen murder as many people as they can before police arrive. There have been numerous instances throughout the country in which people with legally concealed weapons stop crimes, including potential mass shootings, almost before they have begun. It should therefore come as little surprise that almost every single mass shooting in the last several decades has taken place in “gun-free zones” — places where people are forbidden to carry weapons. It is a literal realization of the adage that “if carrying guns is a crime, only criminals will carry guns.”

I should be clear that I am not advocating that everyone carry a gun at UC Berkeley, or on any other campus. Rather, those students or faculty who have met the legal criteria to carry a concealed weapon outside their home — those who have attended safety training, passed a background check and showed themselves to be law-abiding citizens — should be allowed to do so on campus. I also think that universities such as UC Berkeley should take an active role in helping provide educational resources regarding guns, including gun-safety training, to their students.

At the end of the day, guns are simply powerful tools, and they should neither be feared nor misunderstood. Law-abiding students and faculty have the right to use them for self-defense, whether to prevent mass shootings or defend against sexual assault, and this right should extend to the campus grounds of public universities.

Jacob F. Grant writes the Thursday political column. Contact him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @Jacob_at_Cal.