The shooting at Virginia Tech is horrifying and an example of the worst in humanity. Researchers and analysts will dissect every aspect of the event, and families and students will for years to come have to live with a reality that most of us never experience.
Already people who are against guns and pressing for greater gun control are making bold statements in an attempt to capitalize on the fear and horror of this situation. The Australian prime minister reaches across the ocean to toss in his two cents worth from a country that has totally banned guns.
I have only one question for him and all those who are for greater gun control: If we had not been so successful in eradicating guns from our society, do we think that there might have been someone equipped and prepared to stop this madman before he killed 33 people? As it stood, there was simply no one who could stop this person since we are essentially unarmed and unprotected.
For years those of us who are against strict gun control have been saying that when it is criminal to own guns only criminals will own guns. This is a prime example. When a society is unarmed they are unable to protect themselves from the person who is armed and who totally disregards societies norms and laws. It is illegal to kill someone in cold-blooded murder. This guy didn't care. Society finds this behavior unacceptable. This guy didn't care.
If someone had had a gun that day, they could possibly have stopped this gunman. However, that person would well have faced legal consequences for having broken the law and carried a gun onto campus.
People say, "I'd rather be arrested than killed." While that makes a lot of sense, we all wind up playing the odds. We abide by society's laws and norms and take the chance that something like this doesn't happen. For those at Virginia Tech the odds were against them. They were unarmed, and the worst that could happen did.
Update: Tom Plate would not agree with my position. Ted Nugent would. I agree with him too.
No comments:
Post a Comment