Anti-Gun Advocates Don't Need No Stinking Evidence

This article on Fox News is just one of many that infuriate me. The Second Amendment has increasingly come under fire by news media and reactionaries alike as we approach the anniversary of the VA Tech shootings. I'm sure the same thing is going to happen when we approach the Von Maur (Omaha, NE) incident's anniversary. It really gets my blood boiling to listen to these people.

For example, in the linked article above, the reporter explores two options about how to deal with the VA Tech shootings. One option, is to make more laws further restricting the acquisition of firearms, the other is to accept that laws, by nature, do not stop criminals, merely punish them after the fact, and just arm everyone. I might almost have made it through the article without getting angry if not for the fact that the reporter described continuing to disallow students to carry guns on campus as erring on the side of caution. That's the very issue being debated here. In my opinion, erring on the side of caution is giving everyone the ability to defend themselves.

I don't for a moment suggest that it's a good idea to start arming people who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with guns, but for those of us who haven't been conditioned to automatically assume that guns are evil by nature, and not amoral tools, our right to defend ourselves should not be infringed.

It's an old argument, and one for which I've never heard an articulate or worthwhile rebuttal, but the simple fact is that a person willing to kill another in cold blood has already decided to violate the law so he/she is not likely to be tripped up by something as trivial as a gun law. They certainly aren't tripped up by the absurd stickers forbidding the carrying of firearms at the facilities where they commit their atrocities.

Trying to make "gun free zones" has been proven time and time again to be ineffective in preventing homicide by a motivated individual. It fails for much the same reason that communism does; it can only work when everybody believes in the same thing, and that's simply not possible. Not only is it impossible, but it is antithesis to the foundation of what we call American Values. We have rights to different viewpoints and opinions, different faiths and occupations, different dreams and hopes. This isn't true just because we like it that way, it's because the founders of our way of life recognized that it was harmful and ultimately futile to try to force everyone into the same mold.

It is simply impossible to prevent people from going crazy and killing others in the process. Some people are just prone to it, and despite our best efforts, they will get it done. The only logical response to this is to even the odds in favor of everyone else. If everyone is armed, will people still get killed? Absolutely, but not nearly as many. Recent news reports about that church in Colorado have pretty much proven that to be the case. It amazes me that so many officials are so reluctant to allow college students to arm themselves voluntarily.

It's relatively obvious that they're concerned with the responsibility of making such a decision. It amazes me that they consider their own personal liability more important than the lives of the people who would be saved by such a thing. Can we please start electing people with some spine?