Sustaining State Gun Laws

When I tell people that I served my mission in Brooklyn, New York, their initial reaction is almost certainly a chuckle, and a question about how dangerous it was. I now reside in Provo – close to the BYU campus. As most people would guess, FBI crime statistics show a huge difference between Brooklyn and Provo. One of those two cities has a per-capita rape rate that's 3 times higher than the other – putting it above the national average. What most people wouldn't guess, however, is that it's Provo. Residents of New York City live under some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but even New York City recognizes state-issued concealed weapons permits. BYU, situated in a city with similarly disappointing statistics for larceny and burglary to it's name, refuses to recognize such permits, or even allow it's residents to keep a firearm in the home.

Because BYU is an academic campus, the decision to prohibit all weapons is not a surprising one – but I do believe it's the wrong one. In no way do I intend to portray BYU's administrators as poor decision makers or tyrants, nor do I believe they make uninformed decisions. I am, however, a firm believer that there is sufficient statistical evidence to prove that BYU's students would be considerably less vulnerable to violent crime if these policies were changed. As valid and well-meaning as the arguments in favor of gun control are, statistics show that the presence of firearms actually reduces crime. Furthermore, the safe and secure environment that prevails at BYU would still be protected under state laws that are already in place.

Most people naturally believe that crime will increase if the general populace is permitted to have weapons, and although this is theoretically sound, reality does beg to differ. Generally speaking, counties in the United States that have looser gun laws have lower crime rates. It may be thought that those counties might have looser gun laws as a result of already low crime. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA), recently published an unmistakable study that compared crime rates in locations where uniformed, armed personnel were present with locations that had no obvious security. They concluded that over 5,300 crimes were prevented each day in the United States by the mere presence of a firearm. On a larger scale, compare the resistance encountered by Nazi storm-troopers invading Poland, where weapons were banned, with the fight put up by the well-armed American Revolutionary militia. If dictators and oppressive governments can beat their victims into submission easiest when they're unarmed – the same goes for an assailant. As a first-hand witness of the near-civil war that occurred in South Africa, I know from experience that there is a direct link between strict gun-laws, violent crime, and a disregard for human rights. The peace of mind criminals now have as they roam through Provo easily explains the abnormal crime statistics.

Not only does BYU's unconditional ban on weapons leave it's alumni vulnerable to crime, they do nothing to create a safer environment than state regulations already offer. What generally makes people nervous about guns is the potential for accidents and intimidation. Obviously, they're valid concerns, but state laws already do plenty to prevent an accident. If a family chooses to keep a firearm in the house, they are required to keep it locked, away from children, and store ammunition in a separate place. Firearms stored in a car are subject to similar regulations. Virtually every accident or school shooting occurs when these laws are neither followed nor enforced. Storing firearms unsafely, or in a way that puts them at risk for theft, is against state law – regardless of school policy. Concealed Weapons Permits are even safer. Every person who is issued one is required to undergo a background check on both their criminal record and mental health history. They must pass a weapons safety training course, and they are forbidden from carrying the weapon unsafely or using it for intimidation. Most concealed weapons are built with integrated safety features. For instance a standard double-action semi-automatic (the most popular choice for concealed carry) cannot be fired unless the slide is pulled back, the safety lever is clicked, the handle is gripped, and the trigger intentionally pulled. While these actions can be done very fast in an emergency, they are exceptionally hard to do accidentally. Moreover, the mere act of showing the weapon to another person, telling them you have it, or carrying it unsafely is grounds for losing your permit and being fined thousands of dollars. If a student were willing to risk all that, what difference would a school policy make? State laws are already sufficient to protected against virtually all accidents. By enforcing additional laws, BYU is only putting at risk those who would otherwise be able to protect themselves.

Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons, even when law-abiding citizens can't. As is the case with correlation between crime and weapons bans, a general trend of illegal arms dealing is indicative of what happens in smaller towns, like Provo. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union pumped an enormous amount of funding into revolutionary groups and terrorist organizations world-wide. The United States responded by spending just as much money combating the spread of Soviet arms. When that war was finally over and the Soviet Union was out of money, an equally big hole opened up in the Belgian black market, becoming the center for illegal arms dealing for another decade. Restricting weaponry was a massive waste of money showing almost no progress. To give a smaller example, I recently purchased a bird-hunting shotgun. It's designed to fire up to two light-weight shells through a long barrel. In short, it's designed to kill a duck while causing as little damage as possible. It is quite possibly the worst gun to execute an assault with. Buying it cost $300 and used up most of a Saturday for background checks and documentation. Every part of the gun, even ammunition used in the gun, can be traced to me. Conversely, a former acquaintance of mine obtained a Romanian-made AK-47 for $400 through a personal sale that required no documentation. It was later found that the weapon was unmarked, making it untraceable. It was also equipped with a highly-illegal post-market trigger that made it fully-automatic. Although the gun was later turned into police, it's easy to see the difference between a safe, legal weapon, and an unregistered illegal weapon. The government has almost no control over the situation. Again, statistics prove this to be a universal problem: generally speaking, countries that permit and regulate the supply of personal arms have much smaller black markets. Encouraging the safe use of firearms is simply more effective than banning firearms altogether.

Certainly a high school is no place for a handgun, but then no state will issue a concealed weapons permit or sell a firearm to a high school student. BYU is not just a school. It is a community – a place where people live, and a place where people raise their families. It's a place with rising crime rates and a need to be prepared. By focusing more on enforcing state laws instead of making it's own rules, BYU could lower crime rates in Provo and still maintain a safe environment for it's students. Perhaps BYU is worried about the liability it would face if a gun-related accident occurred on campus; I would ask if they feel responsible for the rapes that already occur by not allowing it's students to protected themselves.