Saturday, February 16, 2008

Gun Free Zones

No link is necessary. Everyone knows that there was a shooting at NIU this week. 5 victims dead plus the shooter.

In a country where you must submit to a Federally mandated background check to purchase a gun. (He did.)
In a state where you must have a Firearm Owner's Identification card to own a gun. (He did.)
In a state where no one may legally carry firearms (no one in the classroom did.)
On a "gun free campus." (It apparently was...)

So V-Tech...NIU...how are those "Gun Free Zones" working for you? Wow, everyone seems to be following the policies to the letter. Cho managed to kill thirty+ classmates - all of whom were in strict compliance with the "no guns" policy. This latest killer offed five and wounded like eighteen or something. So he was in a room with somewhere around twenty-three (+) compliant victims.

And administrators, law enforcement, politicians and the antis all scream "LUNACY!" when we suggest that maybe, just maybe an armed good guy or two is the only answer that will actually make our students safer.

No, I'm not talking about armed campus security or campus police. I'm talking about armed students. And goodness, those words barely escape the lips before the bed-wetting begins. You want to send a disarmament advocate into hysterics? Just suggest that a college student shouldn't have to sit there and get shot. Suggest that forcible submission to massacre is outrageous. They'll go into hysterics. You'll be so barraged with emotionally driven baseless arguments devoid of any supporting facts or logic that you'll think you've been transported onto the set of "Bowling for Columbine."

"How will more guns make anyone safer?" This is one of the classics. The shooter was using a gun, so the emotional response is that no good can possibly come of guns. Guns are the evil, guns are the enemy, we must eradicate guns, lest the problem grow. Never mind the fact that a single gun in the hands of one of those students could have kept the body count at ONE. (The would-be killer.)

"You want to arm students??! They're so YOUNG." My gosh, you'd think you just suggested handing out Claymores at day care. Yeah, I guess 18 is too young to be responsible for your safety or anyone else's safety. Too young to be trusted with a gun. I mean, you're only a legal adult...only the same age as most of the guys (and gals) in Iraq. Only the same age as a lot of brave MEN who stormed Omaha beach.

The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, but it comes at a price. And the price is high for those in power: it is the admission that the individual- and not the government - is best suited to be the party responsible for safety and self-preservation.

Sadly, the government, institutions like colleges, and a disgusting portion of the general populace recoil at the notion of anyone daring to defend themself. They prefer disarmed submission.

They prefer massacre.

6 Comments:

Blogger MartiniMartini said...

I am a HUGE proponent of arming profs,instructor, admins, etc, but I believe arming students is the equivilent to arming preschoolers. I spend a lot of time with college kids, and they act like infants. I've seen so many of the "good" and "mature" ones end up in drunken brawls on a regular basis, that I really think placing guns in the hands of these infantile "adults", would be pure disaster. Hey, when parents stop coddling their kids into perpetual babies, and start expecting personal responsibility from these young men and women, by all means arm them then. In the meantime, I imagine that less than 1% of college children could be trusted with a firearm.

16/2/08 11:52 AM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

By the way, the "men" and "women" on college campuses across this country can in no way be compared to the brave men who stormed Omaha beach. That's like comparing your wife's mothering skills to those of Britney Spears because Maharah and Britney are around the same age.

16/2/08 11:55 AM  
Blogger Isaac T said...

I guess I take issue with college kids not being ready to be armed. Just because a good percentage are morons doesn't mean the rest should lose the right. Shoot, if that were the case no one could have guns (which seems to be the Left's take on things... if you own a gun you are a whack-job). I believe the vast majority of college students are good, law-abiding citizens who take seriously their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe the argument you are making is the exact one most anti-gunners are using why no one, regardless of age should have one... because no one (other than the police and government) is mature enough to handle a gun and keep it to protect themselves.
That said, there are tons of college kids I would cringe if I knew they were packing heat. However, there are just as many law-abiding citizens that shouldn't have them either.
My thought was that laws are made to maintain and encourage the greatest amount of freedom for the most people. And for those idiots that mess that up, the law deals with them individually and harshly.
As our country continues to lose its testosterone, we see more and more laws made in response to the exception of the rule (one whack-job messes up, so instead of dealing with whack-job we make a law that hinders the majority... which by the way then treats the law-abiding citizens as criminals) rather than what is best to insure the freedom of the many.
Now, who knows what happens if a college kid is ready in NIU when the 27 year old man comes walking through the door. I believe evil comes wherever their is vulnerability. Whether young men and women in college carrying handguns to class shores up this vulnerability, or not, God only knows.
I just know that evil continues to prey where the armor is the weakest and where people are the least prepared. Maybe more praying needs to happen to cover the school from becoming prey. Maybe families, schools, churches, communities need to do more to invest in the spiritual and moral foundation of a kid BEFORE he does this? Maybe teaching the facts and overlooking the soul pays far worse dividends than we are willing to admit.
Guns may be a solution. Okay, now I'm just rambling. What's you take on this?

17/2/08 9:59 PM  
Blogger Isaac T said...

Oh, and so we all know, I do actually know when to use there, their, and they're. I even proofed this before I published it. Please forgive me for using their instead of the appropriate there. I sit here duly shamed. Forgive me.

17/2/08 10:02 PM  
Blogger M1Thumb said...

Wow - the wrong 'there' - a cardinal sin on this blog.

Isaac T stated very eloquently the exact arguments which I would have posted in response to martinimartini's comment(s).

Most college kids may be idiots, but they are legal adults. While it may be an unsavory thought to think of a drunken frat boy wielding a gun, it's a less savory thought to envision another student catching a bullet in the head from the likes of another one of these Cho types - with no possible means of self defense.

18/2/08 10:19 PM  
Blogger Isaac T said...

So I was listening today on talk radio (for like 5 minutes). The dude (local talk radio) shared that the first person shot was a sergeant in the Marines (I believe that's the case. I know she was a sergeant, at least). I thought he made a great point when he shared that a sergeant is not going to miss from 12 feet when they have 12 shots (from their military-issued beretta). This carnage could have been averted had she been legally prepared to carry out what she was trained to do... protect the freedom for our country. Certainly she didn't fall within the "crazy college student" motif that was shared in response to m1's blog entry. We could again be heralding her heroism, instead of mourning her death! Just think what could have been!

19/2/08 3:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home