April 30, 2007
Be prepared
That's the warning from Clayton Cramer, in a post titled, If You Have a Concealed Carry Permit For Your State.
You should feel obligated to be carrying at all times right now. The media attention to the Virginia Tech massacre--and now this tragedy in Kansas City--is going to put ideas into people who may have been thinking homicidal/suicidal thoughts. Protect yourself, your loved ones, and the general public.
He's right; we're all ultimately responsible for our own safety, the safety of our families, and, yes, even our neighbors.
That's the extended rationale for police; we pay taxes to fund them, so they can confront criminals in our stead.
On a side note, it's ironic that those who argue the most vehemently for police being the only people who ought to be armed -- often the same folks who don't particularly care for law enforcement -- are are all-too quick to condemn the idea of paid mercenaries (i.e., Blackwater security consultants) working in the employ of the U.S.
Where was I? Oh, right, taking responsibility for our safety.
Until the police arrive on scene, the only thing capable of stopping a would-be killer is an armed law-abiding citizen, and in 40 states, odds are you're surrounded by people packing heat.
Now, I know that makes most Californians break out in a cold sweat, but as Michael Barone points out, the ease with which Americans obtain concealed carry permits has not caused the streets to run red with the blood of innocents.
When Florida passed its concealed-weapons law, I thought it was a terrible idea. People would start shooting each other over traffic altercations; parking lots would turn into shooting galleries. Not so, it turned out. Only a very, very few concealed-weapons permits have been revoked. There are only rare incidents in which people with concealed-weapons permits have used them unlawfully. Ordinary law-abiding people, it turns out, are pretty trustworthy.
[...]
So far as I know, there are no politically serious moves to repeal any state’s concealed-weapons laws. In most of the United States, as you go to work, shop at the mall, go to restaurants, and walk around your neighborhood, you do so knowing that some of the people you pass by may be carrying a gun. You may not even think about it. But that’s all right. Experience has shown that these people aren’t threats.
Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a “gun-free zone.” Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the state House of Delegates to allow permit-holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors and visitors would now “feel safe” on campus.
Tragically, they weren’t safe. Virginia Tech’s “gun-free zone” was not gun-free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their guns to stop the killing.
The traditional advice given to airline passengers was to cooperate with highjackers; cops likewise advised civilians to do what gunmen wanted in a confrontation.
That advice presupposes that what the terrorist wants can be achieved with the survival of the hostages. However, as we saw at Virginia Tech -- as well as on September 11 -- when the death of the hostages is the point of the crime, then cooperation is pointless.
The passengers on Flight 93 figured out that they couldn't wait for the professionals to rescue them, and that cooperation was what the terrorists wanted, to make killing them and countless others that much easier. When they said, "Let's roll!" the passengers were reasserting the fundamental right of self-defense -- and the defense of others.
Guns on another campus played a vital role in ending another slaughter. When Charles Whitman took to the clock-tower on the campus of the University of Texas back in 1966, it was the return fire from civilians -- who grabbed rifles from their trucks -- that kept him pinned down and on the defensive, until he could be shot and killed by the police.
I suppose there's a place for civilians who choose not to get involved, who don't want to be armed. But when confronted by the likes of the Virginia Tech killer, I'd prefer having the ability to do something other than cower and hide.
And if I wasn't able to carry a weapon, I'd sure like someone other than the guy on the killing spree to have a gun (or two), for his protection -- and mine, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 30, 2007 12:09 AM
| TrackBack