RESPONSIBLE WITH CONCEALED WEAPONS
(In reference to the Feb. 1 editorial, “Gun flaws.”)
Let me get this straight — there seems to be an implication that Arizona's approach to gun laws would be cast in a better light if they were to require background checks, except, background checks are already required.
There are no background checks at gun shows because those are considered private sales. I believe 33 out of the 50 states do NOT restrict private sales of firearms. Furthermore, the article, after stating that background checks would be a "solid beginning," disparages the idea of having concealed carry weapons in bars or on campus grounds seemingly on the basis that there are no background checks.
Does the author realize that CCW carriers are indeed required to yield to extensive background checks? Furthermore, are you aware of the ratio of CCW carriers who have their license revoked due to firearm related crime (most of which are non-violent in nature)?
In Florida (AZ unavailable) this ratio is around .0000829, that's 168 out of the almost 2 million CCW licenses that they have issued. You also seem to imply that dangerous individuals did not exist prior to allowing guns into bars.
I've seen a guy get stabbed in the neck with a broken bottle at a club. Guns don't kill people. People do. The author then somehow tries to tie a premeditated slaughter in with concealed weapon carry — as if somebody planning to murder a crowd of people really gives a damn about the law.
Arizona should re-evaluate its gun laws? I agree. It is ridiculous to expect the student body to be nothing more than sheep scurrying in fear when a crazed gunman starts shooting into a crowd.
Ryan Tucker
Undergraduate
