Licensed Firearms offers Protection, Violence Prevention

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by GeorgiaGlocker, May 3, 2007.

  1. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 10:13

    4,542
    37
    48
    I found this over at GT.

    http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php ... did=695348

    Licensed firearms offer protection, violence prevention

    Christopher E. Miller

    Guest Writer

    Thursday May 03 2007
    05.03.2007/licensed.firearms.jpg There are differences between firearms and seat belts, of that I’m well aware. But there are also obvious similarities.

    Every time I get in my car, I put on my seat belt. Even if I’m parked for a long time, I have trouble not wearing it - it’s just natural. Without your seat belt, you are at a much greater risk for death or injury.

    It astounds me when otherwise very logical people will not buckle up. Even short trips require a seat belt, because most deaths occur very close to home. The type of environment doesn’t matter, because a car accident can occur in a parking lot or on a road. Over 45,000 people are killed per year by cars, and I’m not going to be one of them.

    It may come as a surprise to many that I think of my sidearm in much the same way. Almost every time I’m off campus I’m wearing one. I have trouble not wearing one - it’s just natural. Without my sidearm, I’m at a much greater risk for injury. Environment doesn’t matter, because even “safe†places can become dangerous.

    Guns obviously cause problems in society, but so do many other things. We recognize that cars are a top killer of citizens, yet do very little to stop people from driving. At the same time, we attack gun owners on a daily basis.

    It might be surprising to the average person to know that gun murders account for only one-fourth as many deaths as cars. Even knowing this, we don’t get rid of cars - we just try to make them safer. Why not do the same with guns?
    The failure of police organizations to update their background checks does not have anything to do with lawful gun owners. The ability of criminals to get their hands on black market guns does not have anything to do with lawful gun owners. The rare occasion when a psychotic man goes on a rampage has nothing to do with lawful gun owners.

    I support legislation that makes background checks easier to perform. I support concealed carry licenses. I support bans on criminal gun ownership. But, I do not support taking guns away from families and citizens who just want to protect themselves from the criminals who we all know are out there.

    Disarming the public makes them easy targets for those who don’t need guns to hurt them. I highly doubt that this short piece could convince a serious doubter that allowing guns on campus should be legal. I accept that, but will say this:
    What does not allowing people to carry guns on campus accomplish?

    Very little.

    Consider that owning a gun and carrying a gun are two very different things. Almost anyone may own a gun, but not every one may carry their gun. The background check preformed for purchasing a gun is separate from the one required to conceal and carry that same firearm.

    The people who are allowed to carry firearms have already been scrutinized past the normal requirement. So, when an institution disallows carrying firearms, they are disarming the people who have already been cleared by the government to carry responsibly. And for what reason?

    The Virginia Tech massacre was carried out by someone not licensed to carry a firearm. He was not licensed to conceal a firearm. He was not licensed to keep it loaded in a public place.

    What did Virginia Tech’s policy ensure? That he was the only one on campus who was armed. If Virginia Tech had a policy allowing people to carry firearms then the only thing that would have changed was that other campus members had a chance to defend themselves. It would not have allowed Cho to bring his gun on campus.

    Let’s remember that murdering people is the ultimate in illegal activities. That may sound ridiculous to state, but think about what that means. Carrying a gun on campus would have been illegal, but not nearly as illegal as murder. So, when a person makes the decision to murder another individual, what does it matter in his mind if he breaks a few other laws?

    Did Virginia Tech’s policy stop 32 people from dying? No. It stopped a responsible gun owner from being able to defend themselves and 31 others.

    People killing other people has been going on since the dawn of time. Armed with nothing more than fists, the average person can do a great deal of damage to another individual. Why would we, in a technologically advanced society, limit our protection to how fast we can run from danger or to how much of a beating we can take before help arrives?

    I do not limit my personal protection to such silly limitations.

    When I drive, I don’t rely on how much impact my bones can withstand if I go through the windshield in a crash - I buckle my seat belt.

    In the same way, I don’t see a reason not to allow licensed individuals to protect themselves by carrying licensed firearms for defensive purposes.

    I prefer not to have to wait for help in situations like Virginia Tech; I’d rather be able to help myself and others.

    What would have happened if instead of blocking a madman’s bullets with tables and their bodies, the victims and heros at Virginia Tech could have defended themselves? Would much fewer than 32 people have died? Finally,—and I’ll answer this one—why did people call 911 when they heard shots?

    Because they knew the police would come to protect them … with guns.

    Letter to the editor.
    [email protected]