Guns in the Classroom? Why Not Swords?

The ancient Romans did not allow swords to be carried within the pomerium, the sacred central precincts of their city.

They were able to maintain the prohibition because they did not have a National Sword Associaion to argue that if swords are banned, only criminals with have swords; or that swords don't kill, people kill; or that it's a violation of personal liberty for free men to be forced to check their swords at the city wall. Nor was there a fanatic Roman electorate ruthless enough to donate to the campaigns of every soft-brained aedile, quaestor, praetor, or consul willing to proclaim the sanctity of swordsmen's rights.

Is it the case that swords were also prohibited in the Roman classroom?  I don't know -- but I suspect as much.

Here at the University of Colorado, in the infant millenium, guns may not be carried into the sacred precincts of the football stadium. However, they're sure-as-hell legal in classrooms, and have been ever since a State Supreme Court ruling forced the U to allow students with Colorado concealed weapon permits to carry their guns on campus -- even on days when exams and papers are returned to students by an historically-unarmed faculty. 

So what about swords? Why should guns be allowed in class and swords prohibited? I don't mean the modern rapier, which is so long that their presence would create, in every classroom, a noisy clatter and might even cause unwary students to trip and fall. I'm thinking rather of the Roman short sword, the famous gladius, which can easily be worn, in an unthreatening manner, under the toga or ski jacket.

Rapier (noisy and prone to cause accidents):

Gladius (inoffensive):

  
In point of fact, why the pusillanimous resistance to gladii at football games?  Fifty-thousand spectators, highly-partisan fans, gargantuan quantities of illegal booze and dope, and short swords -- what could possibly go wrong?