LAW AND ETHICS

Wyoming residents are not required to obtain a permit prior to carrying a weapon, concealed or openly, but all non-Wyoming residents do need a permit. If this bill passes, when Slats Grobnik turns 21, he can go to any college in the state with his gun, without a permit, and it would be completely legal. And that’s what terrifies me.

​

House Bill 136 is a disaster waiting to happen.

​

I’m not anti-gun. I see guns as tools and modes of defense when needed, but they can also be used as weapons in the hands of the wrong person. What I oppose with this bill is the assumption that any Wyoming resident, like me, is trained to legally carry a gun. This bill would allow untrained or mentally unstable people to carry a weapon in what should be among the safest places in every community, our college campus.

​

Let’s take for example, the University of Wyoming football games. It’s common knowledge that many residents and students of Laramie start celebrating and drinking alcohol sometimes as early as 10 a.m. on Game Days. Roughly eighty percent of college students consume alcohol to various degrees. Occasionally people get too rowdy; their thinking is impaired and fights break out.

​

Now add guns to that situation.

​

On one hand, the gun would protect yourself, your family, and others, but what if there weren’t guns there to begin with? Almost every college has its own police force ready to be at any place on campus within 60 seconds.

​

But, allowing “lawful persons” to have guns, which is the majority of Wyoming residents, raises the risk of someone’s using them in scenarios of emotional instability. I understand kids in Wyoming are raised around guns and see them as tools instead of weapons, but there’s always an individual who sees them as weapons. And that’s a risk I’m not prepared to take.

​

We are all now surrounded in a world where shootings in schools and other public areas are prominent and a part of everyday life. We potentially have the ability to change this social norm by requiring a permit with extensive background checks and a series of mental and physical tests taken over periods of time. Yet, Bill 136 seems like it would cause more harm than good.

​

Next year at college, I want to be worrying about making new friends, not worrying about whether the student sitting next to me has a gun.

Some will argue shooters will not be deterred by a “gun free zone.” If the bill passes, gun carriers can stop a perpetrator with their weapon. However, this bill doesn’t require training, and the majority of citizens are not prepared to kill. Even in self defense, killing releases strong emotions like helplessness and fear. Regardless of how justified the killing is, it’s still death.

​

According to Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, there have been at least eight cases where the perpetrator was stopped by armed civilians since 2007. But Professor Volokh also cited a report conducted by the FBI regarding active shooting incidents that stated “active shooters were over four times as likely to be stopped by unarmed private citizens than by armed citizens.”

​

Knowing I can potentially walk on campus with the possibility of a student sitting behind me in class carrying a gun is unsettling. This bill wouldn’t require a registration of firearms, so how will campus security keep track of all the weapons on college grounds? How will public Wyoming colleges continue to protect students and staff when residents are given free gun reign? We have the power to prevent shootings, but this Bill isn’t the answer.

 

– – – – – – – – – –

Update

​

On January 30th, the Wyoming House of Representatives voted and amended the Campus Carry Bill. The amended statements would allow individual college board of trustees members to vote whether they will allow concealed guns on campus. Representatives changed the bill so concealed weapons would not be carried at any athletic events where “law enforcement officers are present to provide security.” The bill passed the third house reading on February 1st where 40 representatives sided with and 19 representatives sided against. It was introduced to the Senate on February 2nd.