Dear Editor,
I am concerned that legislators keep saying books with passing sexual references threaten my children, while strangers with guns do not.
After serving as a cavalry scout in Iraq, I returned to a billet training advisor teams deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq, helping them to obtain weapons qualifications and basic combat proficiency.
Most of the teams did well, but I remember hours on ranges as people struggled to qualify, friendly fire incidents with simunitions while clearing rooms, and accidental discharges of rounds up to .50 cal.
These issues weren't unexpected, because even in battle drills it is hard to develop the trigger discipline to overcome your nerves. It takes considerable training to earn the ability to respond competently to kinetic threats.
It doesn't come naturally and you can't daydream yourself into readiness. Ask any experienced instructor.
In Wyoming, anyone on those teams could get a concealed firearm permit by virtue of their military service, even if they never received comprehensive tactical training or even used a handgun.
Some other means of proving firearms "familiarity" are more liberal in their propensity to allow inadequately-trained individuals to obtain permits. Most pathways don't require a tactical component or any specific handgun training.
Utah allows permitted carry into schools, but also requires training from a handgun instructor certified by their bureau of criminal investigation, without exception. In Wyoming you can qualify with a hunters' safety card.
The scope of these bills goes beyond "self-defense" to "seeking permission to protect others."
Gun Owners of America's lobbyist says he wants to be able to "protect those kids."
The Constitution protects a right to self-defense, but not a right to unilaterally choose to provide armed protection to others. It is in this role where I would want to see more training and to know the armed stranger is objectively qualified to "protect those kids."
Our current loose requirements just don't contemplate a duty to others with that kind of gravity.
You wouldn't hire a bodyguard trained by watching paparazzi videos, so why would I feel comfortable with someone claiming they can protect my kids just because they own a handgun and completed hunter's safety? I don't.
I think I would identify someone walking into my kid's school with a gun as an active threat. How could I know any differently?
Under these bills, do I have to assume that everyone is a "good guy" with a gun? Do I ask for their permit?
Someone watching an armed stranger enter their kid's school might feel the need to take action themselves. Will "stand your ground" apply if someone perceives an unknown permit holder as a threat to children and hurts them in the process?
I don't think the supporters of these bills know how to answer these questions. They haven't really thought about it.
In daydreams of violence, the dreamer fantasizes about the righteous actions of their would-be hero, not the bystanders.
Real gun violence is less predictable and more chaotic. It takes training, which Wyoming doesn't presently require, to rise above that. Ask anyone who has seen it.
Sincerely,
Peter Howard, Cheyenne
