By Tucker Tatroe
Ramparts
Holt HS
1st Place
Division 1, News Writing
Editorial
Early this fall, a bill was introduced in the Michigan Legislature that would
allow some concealed pistol license holders to carry firearms in gun-free zones, such as classrooms, churches and public stadiums. While there are already laws allowing gun-license holders to carry guns, this bill takes it to a new, unnecessary level.
In order to obtain a concealed carry license, holders would have to be 21 or older; however, this does not ease any discomfort. It makes sense that it would be difficult to be completely comfortable if people were aware that anyone could have a gun on them even in places where they should feel secure, such as churches and hospitals.
The idea of guns being allowed in school is one that many are concerned about. Aside from the discomfort in knowing that your own teacher might have a gun on them, at schools these weapons are at more at risk of getting into the wrong hands. This alone leads to many more dangers. In high school, weapons could be taken on purpose, especially if it was known that a teacher might be holding a gun. In elementary schools or day cares, where concealed carry would also be allowed, there runs the risk of younger children accidentally finding these weapons, which they obviously do not know how to use.
When it comes to parents of children in schools, there is even more concern. In a poll conducted by the Michigan Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, 70 percent of voters with children were against citizens being able to carry their pistol in a Michigan school, college, university or day care. This illustrates how the bill would be very unsettling for parents.
Already, there have been stories in the news about gun-holders shooting innocents. Many of these holders already have licenses allowing them to carry guns. If there are already issues with weapons used in what should be civil disputes, why should they be allowed in places where there might be even more risk of impulsive use? It is too easy for deadly weapons to get into the hands of those who might not be responsible enough to carry them, and allowing this bill to be passed only makes it easier.
While many others argue that holding a gun serves as a form as self-protection, it can be argued back that there are less dangerous ways to protect oneself. Having many gun-holders together in an emergency situation might cause even more harm than the original emergency would.
As citizens of the United States, we have so much freedom already. There are less harmful and more valuable freedoms than being able to carry a gun anywhere we want, so why are we so focused on this one?