Opinion piece: Don’t Conceal, Carry On Carefully

People will always want to protect themselves. There’s nothing wrong with that. But when toting firearms around a college campus is the result, then we have issues. BIG issues. Pouring more guns into this equation is like trying to put out a grease fire with a garden hose. It’s guaranteed to be wet, hot, and messy, and a lot of people could get burned, or in this case, shot. And that’s exactly why we need to shoot the Campus Carry Act down. With a cannon.

Is crime a problem? Yes. But the fact is we live in a fear-driven society where powerful people, including politicians, lobbyists (the NRA, ahem)  and the media, tell us we have a problem, and then, miraculously, they provide us a solution. And somehow they convince us it’s in our own best interest to buy into to that solution over all else or suffer the consequences.

What those people don’t say, is that there are better measures for analyzing and combating these issues with preventative measures and knowledge, not force or propaganda.

The same applies to the concealed carry proposal, and that’s really only the beginning of the argument.

The Campus Carry Act was proposed by State Reps. Jesse Kramer and Senator Devin LaMahieu, who proposed the bill in response to what they’ve claimed was an increase in crime around UW-Milwaukee’s campus. Now, I don’t care which side you stand on politically; if you’re like me, and you hear a politician quote statistics, you check those statistics.

Once you do, you’ll actually find a statistical decrease in total crime since 2007 in the neighborhoods surrounding the campus. And as far as on the campus itself, there is almost no violent crime whatsoever.

But statistics aside, this topic wouldn’t be an issue unless there was growing concern for student safety. So, we are left to ask: Even if there was an increase, would this be a reasonable solution?

One of the biggest arguments in this debate asks why the average person would be afraid to let a legal, registered gun owner carry their weapon around. Well, considering that in the same time frame mentioned earlier (since 2007), at least 750 people were killed by over 550 non-self-defense incidents involving concealed carry permit holders nationally, there should be serious reason for concern. The scary part is, those are just the numbers that are reported. In Wisconsin, as long as you are at least 21-years-old, and aren’t a felon or severely mentally ill, all you need is an application, about $50, a few signatures, and proof of training as basic as a hunter’s safety course, and you can legally carry anywhere the state deems appropriate, potentially including college campuses.

Think of all the people you know, apply that criteria, and assess whether or not you’d feel safe with them carrying a gun. That’s a a lot of loopholes.

So letting a 21-year-old student, who may or may not, on paper, have official training as basic as hunter’s safety, wield a powerful weapon in a highly-populated area that is at the mercy of whether or not that student feels threatened, does not seem like a good idea to me. Regardless of how good their judgment is, there are bound to be accidents, serious accidents, and if legal gun owners can’t keep their numbers low, why would a group of people with years less of experience and knowhow be any different?

Plus, just allowing students to carry guns brings up more issues altogether.

First, guns are more often offensive weapons than defensive ones, especially in this scenario. Unless you are highly-skilled and/or highly-trained, when someone points a gun at you, you’re done. Hands up. The first to draw is largely in control of the situation. A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that a person carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 percent more likely to be shot during an assault than a gun-less victim.

So if students are held up at gun point, chances are they’re in no position to defend themselves or retaliate. If they do decide to try to draw their weapon, what incentive does the attacker have not to shoot? Their life will soon be in jeopardy, and they’re already knee-deep in a criminal act, so why not shoot to save from being shot themselves? A weapon just gives them more incentive to put that live round somewhere it will matter. With any luck for the defender, it will only be a leg or arm, something sustainable. But, if not, was death worth the illusion of safety to carry a gun?

That’s what’s at stake here. I could easily extrapolate and say that anyone with a gun unprepared for this type of situation could also lose their weapon, and therefore fuel an illegal arms market that is obviously already in full swing, but the details are worthless. At this point, what is lost is life at the cost of feeling safe, and that is far too large a compromise.

If we are going to combat what seems to be an ongoing issue, regardless of its increase or decrease in frequency, we have to do so with intelligence and awareness, not brute force. If you’re a student, just be wise. Stop carrying excess amounts of cash. Just about everywhere takes credit or debit cards, and they are easy to cancel if lost or stolen. Walk with groups when you can, call SAFE walkers, or use B.O.S.S. Take public transportation. Keep to well-lit and high-traffic streets. Take control and responsibility of your well-being the best ways you can. More than anything, be aware of what’s around you. Not listening to your music on your walk home won’t kill you, but carrying a gun might.