One of the main points I like to introduce to the gun control debate is that most school shootings, as well as other violent gun offenses, are not carried out by people who have bought, trained on, and legally conceal or carry their firearms. It may be a more of a right-wing view then one would normally hear from me, but legislation that inhibits the proper maintenance and use of firearms seems to only do harm. Let me explain...
Right now, it is still legal to obtain a firearm, and furthermore a concealed carry license. Most would find it interesting that it is also legal to obtain suppressors (“silencers”). It is legal to have these weapons in your homes and in your car (with limitations). Every single member of my staff at work owns several rifles and pistols, some for hunting, some for tactical use. There are far more guns next to you at a stoplight than you would probably ever want to realize.
Yet the “wild-west”, fear-mongering scenario, that if this law is passed that everyone will buy guns, will bring them to campus, and have a shoot-out, has not presented itself. Therefore, this extreme of the debate is debunked from the start. The other side of the argument, that a trained and competent bystander, legally carrying a firearm, might effectively neutralize one of these tragic scenarios, has never been proven because people who do own tend not to carry concealed out of fear of criminal prosecution. Hmm...
When you go to the local firing range or gun store, the people who are actively pursuing these endeavors (buying, collecting, researching, using and training how to use guns) are usually gun enthusiasts, ex-military or police and the odd self-defense-case beginner. When people want to shoot up a school, they do not go through the paperwork and waiting periods to obtain and carry their weapon legally. They steal or illegally obtain a firearm, walk right through the doors and begin to indiscriminately fire upon the masses. So logic, to me, clearly sides on the removal of legislation that would inhibit the so-dubbed “hero” scenario.
A common rebuttal is the tactical nightmare the authorities would face if arriving on scene at a shoot-out. If the police were to arrive just as the innocent was returning fire, yes that would be potentially tragic. However, a trained shooter will not only fire calmly and selectively, providing an immediate advantage over an assailant who is usually not emotionally stable in the first place, presumably ending the situation before the police arrive, but will know when to drop his weapon when told, and holster it once the subject is subdued. It does not necessarily even have to be a fatal wound even, as most train for center-mass shots until the target drops. So the best-case scenario is that the crisis is averted. We all understand the worst case scenario, but that would be happening anyway, as the assailant fires shot after shot in the minutes until the police arrive on scene and decide how to breech the situation. I personally would like at least the possibility of a fighting chance.
Having legally carried firearms on campus would also provide what I believe to be a very motivating deterrent factor. These head-case school shooters are only doing this because they know their victims are unarmed and it feeds their need for control over their obviously disturbed worlds. They might choose to take their grievances elsewhere if they thought they might have to contend with someone who could actually aim.
For the previous reasons, I truly believe that when everything is laid out logically, and if guns weren’t so taboo and more people were given the chance to become comfortable with them, learning respect to replace the fear, that legislation allowing concealed carry in more places would be met with a bit warmer of a welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment