The debate over the university’s gun policy is once again in full swing, but between all the posturing and rhetoric, it seems that no one is talking about the real issue.
No one wants to live in fear.
Last week, University of Utah President Michael K. Young announced the release of Senate Bill 251. Still in its preliminary form, the bill is slated to be a watered-down version of the ever-controversial U gun ban and is aimed at prohibiting guns in such places as instructors’ offices and the Residence Halls. In response to the bill, the Second Amendment Students – a pro-carry gun organization here on campus – have announced their intention to fight the bill and maintain that any alteration to the current status of permissible gun carrying on campus is unconstitutional.
The issue of carrying guns on campus has been a thorn in the side of the U’s administration since 2001, when Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff weighed in on the subject and declared the U’s ban illegal. Since then, our university has been embroiled in a legal quagmire concerning students’ rights to carry guns. Recently, the U lifted its self-imposed ban and has tried instead to implement gun control by passing SB 251 through the Legislature.
The interesting part about the U’s gun control debate lies in its origins. Though neither side wants to believe it of the other, both sides of the gun debate are really only interested in one thing: safety.
By and large, those administrators and students who wish to implement a ban and prohibit students from carrying guns on campus are not ganja-prone peacenicks bent on forcing the masses to socialize, put flowers in their hair and sing “Kum Ba Yah.” Conversely, the gun supporters aren’t generally petitely endowed, overly aggressive rednecks dreaming of one day participating in an honest-to-God “Die Hard” scenario through the ductwork of the Henry Eyring Chemistry Building.
Both sides simply want to be safe.
Anti-gun activists feel guns, in any capacity, are designed only to kill and are therefore dangerous and serve no purpose on a university campus but to intimidate peers, disrupt learning and cause potential accidents.
Pro-gun activists, on the other hand, feel that carrying a gun provides a level of personal protection in an uncontrolled public environment that neither the U nor delayed police response can give them – and that this right to personal protection is expressly protected by the U.S. Constitution.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Instead of bickering over the nitty-gritty legalese of where students can and cannot carry guns, legislators, the administration and student groups ought to focus on understanding each others’ concerns and working to find a solution where everyone can feel safe receiving – or imparting – an education.
