Mixed feelings on this one. If you were a student or administrator at Columbine or VA Tech during the murderous rampages on those campuses you would like to think you could pull out your Colt .45 1911A1 and put an immediate stop to the maniac plans of those disturbed shooters. There are probably many gun owners out there who feel the same way.
Does anyone believe that a "Gun Free Zone" sign in front of a school keeps their children safe from criminals with homicidal intentions? Does anyone believe that the sign is even a mild deterrent? Do homicidal maniacs stop to read those signs? Do they purchase their guns legally or obtain them illegally? Do laws serve as a deterrent in these situations or serve primarily as a means of revenge or justice after the fact?
No barriers including signs, laws, morals or even common sense can serve as a deterrent to a determined homicidal maniac. Force is the equalizing deterrent of last resort. Which parties should have the right and responsibility to respond with force?
People that think the police are there to protect them probably feel like common citizens shouldn't possess or carry firearms because it might be dangerous. As they say, "When seconds count the Police are only minutes away!" When faced with an immediate threat the police just aren't going to be there. First, it's impossible to be at all places at all times. Second, even when the police arrive on scene they have to assess the threat, organize the resources, plan an approach, in short, unless you have very brave officers who can immediately understand, identify and aggressively mitigate the threat, you are out of luck! Is the default really to surrender and wait for help?
Do barriers to gun ownership limit criminal ownership of guns? Do determined criminals have trouble sourcing a firearm? When facing a determined and armed criminal do we want to wait three minutes for police response?
There is an inherent discomfort with thinking that everyone you encounter could be armed. Let's draw some parallels to another deadly tool that most people in the U.S. over the age of 15 utilize in their daily lives to answer the question do we really want average citizens to carry a gun? Do you really want my 16 year old to drive a car at night on the interstate? Are you comfortable that because he has been certified by the government, after all he has a license, that he will be a safe driver? At what age would he be eligible to become a "safe driver". My 14 year old could be a lot safer driver than your 16 year old! The insurance industry thinks its age 25. There is ambiguity and uncertainty when you think about dangerous tools in the hands of your untrained neighbors. I don't want my neighbor or my neighbor's kid to drive a car or carry a gun. I would just as soon have the highways and the ammo to myself but since I don't want him or the government to decide if I can have those rights I have to be willing accept that everyone else has those rights. Obviously the government can't guarantee safety or limit the criminal access to tools that are capable of producing deadly force.
Government licensing doesn't filter out novices or irresponsible people and criminals will circumvent the process, so what is the benefit of the restrictions and who do you want to make that decision? Certification and deterrents serve as weak security blankets for the victims of criminal theft by tax and authoritarian regulation and control. Remember, the criminals aren't going to pay unless they get caught. You pay all the time in cash and in the loss of rights.
- Police and certification don't protect people or serve as much deterrent to determined criminals
- Your government and your neighbor are not better judges of basic skills and fitness than you are
- Rules and signs don't protect you or your family in life or death situations
- Freedom, rights and responsibilities are uncomfortable but it beats the alternative
There isn't a blanket solution to the danger of homicidal maniacs in schools or other "gun free" zones. If it were my family or yours, I'd rather you be armed than wait for a government committee to respond.
For more information see this post on The New American
No comments:
Post a Comment