On Wednesday, new Arizona laws took effect to let licensed gun owners store firearms on most public and private properties as long as they are concealed and locked in vehicles. Meaning, gun owners can bring their guns to any one of ASU’s campuses, as long as they get left in the car.
Licensed owners are also permitted to carry concealed weapons into bars and restaurants unless there is a sign on the property prohibiting firearms.
Now, a major point in the pro-gun argument rests on the Constitutional right to defend one’s self, but this new legislation seems to be created to appease gun-rights activists without actually delving into the issue of whether having guns on campus contributes to or detracts from student safety.
These new laws may let you drive around with your gun, but if you are ever in a life-threatening situation on campus, how does a firearm in the glove compartment of your Chevy Malibu help protect you? If bars post no-gun signs — as many around the Valley are doing — then how does this legislation extend Second Amendment rights?
Gun rights are a serious issue, one that should not be relegated to meaningless legislation that — for the most part — only serves to take up lawmakers’ time and throw a bone to the squeakiest wheels of the firearm debate.
The discussion about concealed carry rights on campus has been going on for years, flaring up last spring when a state Senate bill was introduced that would have allowed concealed carried weapons to be on university campuses. Eventually the bill was blocked from going to a full vote by then-Senate President Tim Bee.
Truthfully, there are compelling and valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and both viewpoints are motivated by a concern for students’ safety — they just differ on how to facilitate it.
Tragedies like Columbine and the Virginia Tech Massacre shaped the way many in our generation view their personal safety on campus, meanwhile creating a slew of worst-case scenario fears and giving the debate a “what if?” tenor.
Could a responsible student carrying a licensed gun deter a national tragedy? Or could pulling out a gun in a high-pressure situation cause more confusion and damage?
The list of hypothetical situations is never-ending. These potential situations should not be discounted, but getting lost in the endless “what ifs” detracts from discussing the issue as a whole.
Both those supporting gun rights and those against them make compelling points.
The right to bear arms is written right into the Constitution, so why shouldn’t a licensed and trained gun owner be allowed to carry a weapon with him or her?
On the other hand, is bringing a loaded firearm into an alcohol-serving establishment really a good idea? Maybe we’re watching too many Wild West films, but alcohol and guns don’t seem like a particularly good mix. And in any situation there is the issue of accidental discharges, leading to a public safety hazard.
All gun-related topics must be addressed and debated — but shying away from discussion by passing legislation, such as Wednesday’s laws, does little to move the debate forward.
In such a hot-button debate, not everyone will be happy with the final outcome. But when lawmakers are passing pointless laws that allow people to carry their weapons only so far as the gates of private properties and public institutions, it distracts from the real issue and ensures that nobody wins.
