A recent Branding Iron editorial by Cory Schroeder criticized the Wyoming legislature’s decision to not pass House Bill No. 105, legislation which would allow certified individuals to carry firearms in and around Wyoming’s public schools. A common argument by the pro-gun side of the gun control debate is that more guns equal less crime because guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will make criminals reconsider their actions.
To an extent, I will acknowledge this argument. An individual planning a home invasion or something similar would likely pick a vulnerable target and a lack of defensive weapons would make a target more vulnerable.
However, this argument operates on the assumption that shooters like James Holmes or Adam Lanza rationally select their targets. In the words of Mr. Schroeder, the men and women involved in mass shootings are “crazy.” It’s true, many of those implicated in mass shootings were in dire need of psychiatric help.
Would these “crazy” people look at an armed populace and decide against their violent intentions? Probably not.
Consider the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. What populace is more armed and better trained than the United States military? And yet there were more than a dozen fatalities and many more injuries. Or would these “crazy” people find another method of implementing their plan, such as explosives as in the Oklahoma City bombing?
Finally, there is the potential issue of armed yet untrained individuals running around a campus in search of the shooter, putting both themselves and others at potentially greater risk. Police treat everyone they encounter as a possible hostile. What appears more hostile than someone with a gun?
I am not saying security around schools should not be improved. However, perhaps more important than coming up with ways to stop these “mad gunmen” once they begin their attacks would be to devise ways to identify at-risk individuals and get them the help they need before they ever formulate and carry out these attacks.
Jeff Wilson
jwilso50@uwyo.edu
