One of the worst things you can do is make a law in response to a single incident. Whether it be the Patriot Act in response to 9/11, making dog-napping illegal because one mayor in the Valley had his dog stolen, or banning guns on college campuses because of the Virginia Tech massacre, ad hoc laws are almost universally bad.
I'm not your usual Democrat. I'm pro-death penalty (if done right), I want to drastically step up efforts to eliminate illegal immigration at the border and by going after employers, and I would be more than happy to damn near close the borders altogether in order to stem our third world growth rate (of course, even the Republian Party is is pro-illegal immigration), I'm pro-life (as far as my personal beliefs, anyway, I could care less about other people), and I will be God-damned before I give up my guns. Sure, I think the 2nd Amendment can be reasonably regulated like any other amendment. Hell, the exceptions to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments pretty much swallow the rules so the 2nd is most likely no different.
But how and when should it be regulated? I'm not talking about nukes, grenades, or fully automatic weapons, I'm talking about guns that people use to protect themselves. The action you take to regulate guns has to be related to the result you intend, and we all know from the recent DC case that a complete gun ban in DC has made it no safer, and in fact DC is less safe than almost anywhere. And the guy at VT who shot all of those people was already breaking the law. Did a law stop him? Not a bit. We have laws that say "no guns on campus" and "don't shoot other people" and "murder is illegal". It's even a sin, forchrissakes. So if the Ten Commandments and state and federal laws didn't stop the shooter at VT, what would have?
Someone else with a gun.
I am sympathetic with this guy's stance in a way, because I am sure that being there and having friends and a girlfriend killed was horrible beyond words. I imagine that being defenseless in that situation would be awful. The way to fix that is to make it where people can defend themselves, ot to make it harder. Had people been allowed to carry they could have stood at the doors and defended other students, or affirmatively gone to look for the shooter. Same thing happened at the Killeen Luby's a while back, a woman who normally caried a gun left it in her car that day for some reason. Her dad was shot down right next to her. Had she had it, maybe he wouldn't have been.
I don't personally put any stock in the argument that every time a CCW law is passed crime in that state immediately drops. I do, however, think that if someone is shooting up a crowd of people and someone can shoot back, at least the death toll will be lower. No law will stop someone who will already break a law in order to carry out his or her crime. But my 1911 will.
So I'm sorry for this guy's loss, but I hope he minds his own business and realizes that his personal experience should not dictate that other people should fall victim to a campus shooter because noone can shoot back. The first line in this article shows that this guy sits in class and wonders what would happen of someone came in shoting. If all he can do is sit there, what will happen is that he'll die. If he and others can shoot back, maybe more will live. We already know what happens when an armed attacker shoots a bunch of unarmed students. Let's see if the result changed with armed students.
There Goes a Man
1 year ago