Update I thought that this post deserved some more time at the top.
In the wake of the VA Tech massacre there have been any number of pundits discussing the pros and cons of concealed weapons as well as stricter gun laws. A few quick comments about this.
Let’s take a look at a potential scenario. More states approve concealed weapons legislature. So now provided that you pass the background check you can start packing heat. My question is how many more people would start carrying guns upon their person. Would it really make that much of a difference.
I know an awful lot of people who have guns at home and or carry guns in their automobiles. Most of them are not part of law enforcement. They have these guns for protecting themselves and their families.
The point is that I am not convinced that we would see a tremendous increase in the number of armed people walking around. Perhaps more would get licensed but the question is how many of those people are not currently packing heat.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing against owning a gun. I just don’t completely buy into the theory that easier access to concealed weapon permits will make that much of a difference.
If you are placed in a situation in which you need a gun there are always going to be some fundamental issues tied into it. The primary one is how fast can you get to your gun. If you’re at the ATM and someone sticks a gun in your back it is not going to matter whether you have a gun on you or not. If they get the drop on you, well now you’re stuck.
Again, this really isn’t an anti-gun argument. I don’t have a problem with people owning firearms, provided that they maintain safe and proper procedure with them.
Just my two cents.
Private citizens can get training in this country, Jack. And those of us who are responsible, do.
That is a good thing.
Frankly, I’m against restrictions on speech, but don’t see what could have been lost, constitution-wise, if Cho had been subjected to a more comprehensive background check.
There are a number of questions that we need to ask.
1) What kind of background checks are being performed now and more importantly what kind of follow up is there.
It has become clear that Cho was identified as having problems but he fell through the cracks.
In other words the mechanism was in place but not used.
Dr. Zen,
Simple statements often lose court cases.
The UK: no legal guns, shootings make headline news.
The US: legal guns, shootings make page 5.
The people rest their case.
About a year ago, a cashier at a local Wal-Mart was attacked at her station by her ex. He stabbed her deeply several times before a customer with a concealed gun opened fire on the guy and saved her life. He was the only one there to take action, everyone else was immobilized. Just one example, but illustrates how a concealed weapon in the hands of someone trained to use it properly can save a life. I don’t think I’ve seen a single massacre started by anyone with a concealed carry license.
The amazing thing is the fact that afterwards, here were people who wanted the gunman arrested, and said that people could have stopped the attacker by pelting him with merchandise. Yet, they all just stood there, so the argument had nothing to do with reality.
Two points from above I’d like to address.
1. This isn’t the wild west.
Egad, that’s trite. First of all, when people say that they don’t mean the real west, they mean the Hollywood version. I haven’t done the research, but I’d be willing to bet that people are dying in greater numbers in today’s west, with all the gun laws in place.
2. Many who defend the right of others to engage in hate speech anytime, anyplace are the same ones who are for a ban on private gun ownership.
So what? Those are different issues entirely. So how do these people feel about abortion and tarrifs, as long as we’re comparing oranges to pomegranites?
Frankly, I’m against restrictions on speech, but don’t see what could have been lost, constitution-wise, if Cho had been subjected to a more comprehensive background check.
(cool…… my word verification is sctvhr, as in Second City Television Hour.)
Private citizens can get training in this country, Jack. And those of us who are responsible, do.
JB,
I am not a big proponent of selling guns with dairy products.
Paula,
I don’t disagree with you about the packing heat theory. I don’t really see the need for assault rifles or automatic weapons either.
That being said the question I come up with is asking for people to provide more specifics regarding restrictions. What kind of restrictions? How are they different from those currently in place etc.
Mark,
If the professor had been carrying and if he had it on him and was prepared to use it, well things might have been different. The thing is there are an awful lot of “ifs” there.
Security guards in Israel are trained to deal with all sorts of issues. They are a different sort of egg.
I am not arguing about banning guns or private ownership.
Paula,
When they can shoot through the screen I’ll be more concerned. 😉
Walker,
Nice to meet you. Feel free to come back. In regard to your comment I hear what you are saying. I don’t own any guns. Personally I like my baseball bat, but I am not interested in banning guns.
I think that if anything we really need to bring more technology into play. There are somethings that we can do that would be very effective.
Hi, here via Brians site.
I live in Canada where gun permits for hand guns are hard to come by if not next to impossible.
Here if you pass a series of tests and back ground checks that could take uto a year you will be allowed to buy a hand gun.
But in order to take it from one place to another you have to go to the police station and get a travel permit and you can only go from point A to point B and not stops in between becauseif you get caught loosing your gun will be the least of your problems.
I don;t see the need to carry a gun.
This isn;t the wild west.
The more guns put out there isn;t going to make it safer.
The only good outof a gun kept in tyhe car is for the person who breaks into it and steal the gun.
I own a couple of guns (rifle, shotgun)and I keep them locked up. In fact I don;t recall the last time I took them out.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people so wouldn’t it be smarter to keep the guns out of people hands?
Just my thoughts.
Nice post.
Oh, and I especially believe that those peeps who are so irresponsible as to post pics of themselves pointing guns at their readers ought not to be allowed to own guns. Speaking of nuts. 🙂
Jack:
The people who wish to carry will carry whether the law allows them to or not. Allowing concealed carry only makes those people, otherwise law-abiding citizens, completely law-abiding.
The issue of allowing concealed carry is not to keep others from engaging in shootings like the one at VT or to “get the drop” on someone at the ATM. Consider, however, that if the prof who died in the act of protecting his students was carrying, how the outcome might have been very different? Security guards in Israel routinely stop would-be terrorist attacks and save lives so the concept isn’t really as far-fetched as the anti-gun nuts would have us believe.
The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It is a right we enjoy along with all the others, like the First Amendment, for example. I don’t see many running around trying to curtail one’s right to run one’s mouth with careless abandon, quite the opposite.
Many who defend the right of others to engage in hate speech anytime, anyplace are the same ones who are for a ban on private gun ownership. Makes one wonder…
ITA, Jack. The idea that if only more people “packed heat” there’d not be any shootings is silly. What, are we going to wear gunbelts? The three seconds it’d take to get out your gun (assuming it wasn’t left in your car) are two point nine seconds too long. I support more restrictions and more rigorous enforcement of gun laws.
Guns are a scary thing and in the hands of the wrong people dangerous things can occur. You should not be able to buy a gun where you buy milk if you get my drift.