Skirting the tiresome legal arguments and the idea of preventing a violent culture, SCCC focuses on the idea that, by carrying guns, we will never have to use them — like an arms race.
Obviously this author is more than a little confused. SCCC does not focus on the idea that a carrying a gun will mean you will never have to use it. That would be patently absurd because a gun (ie. an inanimate object) is not a magic talisman that automatically makes you safe. Similarly, a no guns sign is not a magic talisman that creates a force field that prevents anyone with a gun from passing it. But that should be obvious.
For a group that uses a massive amount of statistics in its arguments, it’s curious that SCCC finds its impetus in statistical outliers — though the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings were horrific, are they truly valid bases for widespread policy?
It's also curious that gun control advocates find their impetus in statistical outliers - though the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings were horrific, are they truly valid bases for widespread policy?
In fact, given the fact that
12,682 people were killed in the United States in 2005 (out of a population of 296,507,061, which translates to .004% of the population) by people using firearms in a homicide or legal intervention according to the CDC, it's curious that gun control advocates consider themselves to have any valid base for widespread policy at all. Especially when you consider the fact that 45,343 people were killed in the United States in 2005
unintentionally in motor vehicle deaths (there were 789 unintentional firearms death in 2005).
Given that, and the fact that numerous other things that cause far more deaths in the United States every year than firearms (even when suicides are included), one would think that anyone seriously concerned about public safety would be investing more time, effort, and money into ensuring that cars, for example, don’t accidentally kill people.
The scenario SCCC paints is compelling: helpless students slaughtered because they cannot arm themselves. But how does that stack up against thousands of armed students and faculty on a daily basis?
Well, considering that thousands of armed citizens with concealed weapons go about their lives on a daily basis all over the nation, and blood has yet to run on the streets, and OK Corral shootouts over petty disagreements have yet to materialize, I think it stacks up pretty well. But I wouldn’t let the truth- the fact that despite fantasies of such by gun control advocates regarding concealed carry and castle doctrine laws dozens, if not hundreds, of times are still just fantasies— get in the way.
Don’t forget that the ultimate reason to carry a gun is to be able to fire it.
Well, I would be lying if I said that shooting wasn’t fun. But no decent human being carries a gun itching to shoot someone. And no intelligent human being enjoys spending thousands of dollars on lawyers to ensure that he is not sent to jail for defending himself. As John Farnam wisely stated, “Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.”
Some are less than thrilled with our university’s current gun policy, which prohibits anyone from carrying a gun on campus. On the other hand, many are uncomfortable with the thought of allowing loaded, lethal weapons on campus.
What is strange is that last time I checked, I never saw anyone argue that campus or other police officers should be disarmed. I also never saw anyone argue that no one should call 911 in the event of a shooting.
Make no mistake about it. Gun control advocates often have little issue with the thought of allowing loaded, lethal weapons on campus (or anywhere else, for that matter). They just have an issue with ordinary citizens having one.
If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point. Silence on this issue might be taken as consent.
Again, I have not seen anyone argue that police officers should be disarmed. Because until they are, any student and faulty or staff member IS already within firing range at any given point.
