Sometimes, all you need to form an opinion is looking at what’s new at Grand Valley State University. A recent article was published by Gabriella Patti concerning the lifting of the ban of pepper spray for self-defense. The article explains that the man behind this amendment, Ben Soltis, is also moving toward lifting the ban against firearms, allowing students to carry weapons for on campus.

That’s certainly a big jump from where we were, not even permitting the use of pepper spray. How far will Soltis make it in his proposal? More importantly, will the allowance of gun use on campus solve of create more problems in the long run?

This is a topic that I find gray with very little black and white. On one hand, anybody who is being robbed or witnesses someone being robbed will probably desire something to make the attacker back off, because nobody likes when the bad guy wins a battle. Carrying a weapon would certainly be one answer to that problem.

On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that this is a university where many people lack parental restrictions for the first time. Some people choose to maintain their self-control while others go overboard on things like drinking. If a drunk person had a weapon, would that picture be pretty?

This world is an imperfect and sometimes cruel place. There are numerous controversial topics like this that have considerable benefits and drawbacks on both sides. Being more conservative than liberal, I’ve always agreed that citizens should have the right to own firearms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment. However, until now, I’d never really given much thought about my stance when it comes to people carrying concealed weapons in public.

If everyone secretly carried a weapon, it might prevent many petty crimes on the streets from happening, but there would also be the risk of many more shootings and fatalities. I mean, we already have so much of that happening already, don’t we?

In terms of firearms being permitted on GV property, I feel pepper spray is enough self-defense for the incidents that have been reported. However, if we were to allow other means of self-defense, I would recommend something else that’s non-lethal.

The purpose of a weapon of defense is to subdue the offender, not necessarily to kill them. A non-lethal weapon is great at ensuring that outcome with minimal possibility of fatality. As I mentioned, I agree completely that we should strive for providing students with the means of going through their daily lives feeling as safe as possible. However, we can’t just overlook the potential danger in allowing students the right to carry a weapon that has the ability to prematurely end another’s life.

I don’t know how much farther this amendment will go, but I guess the only thing to do right now is to observe Mr. Soltis on his quest. And should he succeed in getting the Student Senate to consider allowing weapons on campus, I hold to my claim that non-lethal weapons would be much safer.

[email protected]