[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
As the “gun control” debate gathers energy in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, one interesting detail pops up over and over: The vast majority of the arguments I have seen or heard against owning and/or carrying firearms come from people who apparently know something between little and nothing about firearms. Most recently, Geri Stutheit asked rhetorically if someone “really believe(s) a student seated at a desk would have a chance to retrieve a firearm from a backpack or pocket in time to get the first shot off?” (Practically speaking, handguns are not the answer, 05/02/07.) She clearly thinks the answer is a resounding “No!” Aside from the fact that concealed carry usually involves a device called a “holster,” which is generally designed to give a person reasonably rapid access to the firearm being carried, the recent example of the Virginia Tech shootings demonstrates the folly of this argument. At least one story cited the police as saying that the killer fired at least 168, and perhaps as many as 225 rounds of ammunition, over a course of more than 9 minutes. The “first shot” is relatively meaningless compared to the estimated 167-224 following shots. The clear and obvious answer to the question of whether the carnage could have been minimized by an armed person or people in the different classrooms is, yes, any reasonably or even minimally trained person would likely have the skill to have drawn a firearm and been prepared to defend him or her self and other students and teachers well before the gunman fired round number 21 (since even 2 fully loaded pistols with 10 rounds each would have required reloading before shot 21 could be fired.) The anti-gun zealots love to say, “guns are not the answer.” And maybe they are not the answer, or even the best answer. But until the best answer- a real solution to all gun violence, if there is such a thing- is identified, it seems to me that having a gun is a pretty good starting place when someone else starts shooting at you. This letter has not been edited.
READER COMMENTS
How about not selling guns to people known to be mentally unstable and prone to violence?
Cho was noted by the court as being of imminent danger to himself and others.
Yet he could buy a gun with no let or hindrance.
Would it really be too much to ask that homicidally insane people not be allowed to own guns?
Posted by on May 8, 2007 02:53 PM
No, liberals can have guns if they want them
Posted by jgd777 on May 8, 2007 09:45 PM
Yo,Mike! Good Libertarian thinking,although I'd have put a little more emphasis on the relative futility of passing laws intended to govern the behavior of individuals.
Posted by Jimminy on May 8, 2007 11:31 PM
"The vast majority of the arguments I have seen or heard against owning and/or carrying firearms come from people who apparently know something between little and nothing about firearms."
One only has to read the anti-gun posts here to realize how true this statement is.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]