The senseless massacre at Virginia Tech has once again ignited the gun control debate. Proponents of gun control are proclaiming that more rigid controls might have prevented the bloodshed while the pro-gun community insists that the guns aren't to blame.
What has been overlooked in the debate is perhaps what is most crucial: which camp has proposals that can actually work?
This story will hopefully 1) serve to illustrate the pro-gun mindset and 2) spark a useful and meaningful dialogue between the two camps in the hope of reaching the mutual goal of both sides: reducing gun violence.
Let's talk it over on the flip-side.
Let's just lay it all out on the table. I'm a pro-gun guy. I am fiercely protective of my 2nd amendment rights.
These are some of my "toys", generally similar to those used up in Canada earlier this year and those used in Virginia:
At the top is my CX4 pistol caliber carbine. This is the same type of "assault rifle" used in the Dawson College shooting last September. It's chambered in .40 Smith & Wesson ( a caliber designed by the FBI as the optimal balance of portability and effectiveness), and you can see the red dot scope, forward pistol grip, and 3-point sling. This rifle is not intended to hunt deer, but that's okay. I'm not a hunter.
At the bottom right, my Beretta 96FS semiautomatic pistol. This is the same platform used by the U.S. armed forces and broadly similar to the the Glock 19 9mm that was used in Virginia. Mine shoots bigger and more lethal bullets.
Across the bottom is my collection of high-capacity magazines intended to feed both of these monsters. The magazines' capacity of greater than ten rounds each means that both of these weapons are considered "assault-style weapons". If I were to suddenly fly off the handle and "go postal", I could wreak an incredible amount of havoc with these.
I must also confess that I regularly use them in target shooting competitions, so I am very proficient with them. More proficient, in fact, than pretty much any police officers you're ever going to meet. And the targets themselves? Not round bullseyes, but human-shaped torso targets. Yes. And I don't consider these competitions to be mere "games", either. I approach them very seriously with the thought very firmly in mind that they represent live human beings.
Many of my friends practice the same skills with the same sort of weapons. My teenaged son? A qualified expert marksman.
Now here's the thing: I do not consider myself an evil or violent person. I would much rather avoid conflict than take another human life. I own and dilligently practice with these machines of death in the fervent hope that I will never have to employ the skills I've acquired. But I feel prepared to do so should the need arise.
Are my guns evil? Am I evil? Are my friends evil? I don't think so. We are armed and trained, but none of our weapons have ever been used to perpetuate such tragedies as we have all borne witness to this past week.
I and my friends are just regular folks like the rest of you. Some of us are pro-abortion. Some aren't. Some hate Dubya. Some love him. Some are "pro-traditional marriage". Some aren't. Above all, we tend to be friendly, honest, and pragmatic.
And that's why we're so puzzled by the anti-gun sentiments surrounding this event. You see, we know that we are responsible, trustworthy citizens, and we are confident in our abilities to negate the threat of an armed lunatic running amok on a college campus.
The way we see it, if we were allowed to carry our weapons in the same responsible, safe manner on a college campus that we do everywhere else we go....we (or someone just like us) could have ended this massacre before it started.
So we're puzzled.
Perhaps you think that we love our guns more than we love other people. Not true. We do, however, believe very strongly in the cause of freedom, which so many of our forebears have fought and died to guarantee. You might think that we just don't see the danger inherent in an armed society; how overly-efficient firearms are in dealing death. Rest assured, we do. We, of all people, know. That's why we're so dilligent, so conscientious. We believe that rights come with responsibility, and we recognize the potential threat of people like Cho Seung-hui. Why else do you think we practice so much?
So here's our take: We believe that people in an unsafe situation have no right to "feel safe". We believe that safety comes from preparedness.
We believe that people who bear a concealed carry license; who have passed the rigorous background check, mandatory training, and have proven their proficiency...should be allowed to travel armed on America's campuses. It truly irks us that such a person was present and in a position to stop this, yet she had been forced by the campus to surrender her firearm at the gate. We believe that many of those people died senselessly in a tragedy that could have been averted, had others seen their way past their (as we see it) irrational fear of the guns themselves and recognized the true threat: the psychpath lone gunman.
The police cannot save you. Especially when you petition to disarm them. We cannot save you. Especially when you petition to disarm us. You cannot save yourselves when your fear of a machine designed to kill overrides the basic fact that sometimes the ability to kill is a good thing.
So I'm writing this to reach out to the pro-gun control folks. I want to know: what is your answer? What law can you write that will make guns inaccessible to psychopaths? How do you create a disincentive for a man that's suicidal?
How would you stop this without writing a law that's unconstitutional? Let's say that your first step is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I obviously disagree, but fair enough. What do you do in the meantime?
This same sort of thing may happen tomorrow, next week, next year. What law would you write to keep it from happening?
Our position is simple: Campuses may no longer bar CCW holders from travelling armed on campuses. We believe this would work in the same way that protects NRA conventions, gun shows, and firing ranges. Massacres don't happen there. We believe that "gun free zones" have been the center of these sort of massacres time and time again, proving repeatedly that they merely provide a target-rich environment for the armed nut.
So let's hear it: what's your plan?
edit
53 comments at this point. No proposed legislation from the gun-control advocates. I am not-so-patiently awaiting a proposal here.
edit
Anyone? Beuller??
final edit of the evening
Nuthin'. Just as I suspected. I'll check back in the morning.