Posted: 4/19/2007 4:56:47 AM EST
I will add another comment for the sake of common sense.
Guns do not kill people.... You guys know the rest.
Before you label me a gun-toting redneck please read the rest, and then make your assumptions.
I also believe as a U.S Army Veteran, NRA member, Licensed Florida Security guard, concealed weapon licensed, law-abiding citizen *gasp for air* and educated pre-med student that these non-sense laws only harm the "good guys". It's already been stated that bad guys don't follow laws, hence the name "criminals".
I truly believe that criminals choose Schools, post offices and similar places because of our inability to defend ourselves (easy targets). I find it logical to assume that had licensed students at VT been given the opportunity to defend themselves, the news might have read somewhere along the lines of "4 students dead, gun man stopped by student".
I hear all of this non-sense about how the school would be like the Wild West. These same accusations where made about newly acquired CCW laws for many states and have proven to be irrational, non-manifesting slippery slope theories.
-Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, but revoked only 157 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.8
This is hardly evidence of a catastrophic gun slinging change in the state. These statistics are similar for all right to carry states.
-North Carolina reports 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law - a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers.
-Of the 14,000 licenses issued in Oregon only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
Additionally, revocation of license is for any criminal conviction, and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI. You can take the time to search through the list or RTC (CCW) states.
The acts are that this lunatic entered a classroom, stepped out for a few seconds to reload and came back in to fire again. This was a perfect opportunity for someone to have used a legal firearm and save many lives. As a matter of fact he put himself in one of the most dangerous situations possible in a fire fight. In the military we refer to the entrance of a room as the fatal funnel. If that situation wasn't suitable enough for you, then let’s examine when two students used a table to barricade a door and found themselves receiving fire through the said door. Under optimal circumstances, defensive return fire would have certainly come as a surprise to this animal and perhaps served as a permanent tranquilizer.
While I greatly appreciate the efforts put forth by our courageous law enforcement personnel, it is clear that their job mainly consists of crime scene investigation and tagging the bodies of the defenseless people they are sworn to protect and serve. The police response time will always be measured in a matter of minutes, while your life can be taken in a matter of seconds. Sometimes this 5 minute wait can cost you a lifetime. Unless an armed police officer can be at your side every second of your life you can never place the complete safety of yourself or family in the hands of a stranger. The mere issue of congested traffic will change that 5 minute response time to 10 or 30.
Furthermore it has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Castle Rock v. Gonzales that, citizens do not have the constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. The D.C. Court of Appeals also ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), "Police aren't required to protect you. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen." In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."Sadly, not only is this stated, but it is also manifested in real life scenarios. Take the Katrina disaster for instance, what must you do when left disarmed and unable to protect yourself from criminals when the police decides to just pack up and quit?
Perhaps the most important role of our 2nd amendment is the least considered one. The right to keep and bear arms, meant mainly to secure the possibility of rebellion against a tyrannous government. It is the amendment that protects all of the others, as they are not the worth the paper they are printed on if there is not a bullet behind it to enforce the violations against these said god-given liberties. This is very important to me, mainly because I come from a country with a complete outlaw on civilian weapons. Want to know how that turned out? Please Google the island of Cuba just 90 miles from America.
Once again, that anti-gun lobby will state that the times have changed and that the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary. They may also go as far as ignorantly saying that the 2nd amendment is meant for a militia and not the people. Despite all of the various changes in America history, the Supreme Court still rules that "the people" as stated in the 2nd amendment refers to the individual and not the militia;
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Regarding the meaning of "the People", the U.S. Supreme Court stated in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990),
"the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
It is easy to get emotionally blinded by these very sad and unfortunate events. Many say that more guns equal more crime. This is once again, statistically false. Ironically, it is actually quite the opposite.
Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.1 (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.2) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted Right to carry laws, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,3 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 Right to carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.4
How can logical people, provided such clear evidence deny that the problems our society faces are not due to guns. These are social, family, moral and ethical issues. They are manifested by the individual not the weapon he uses. It is time to point the finger where it belongs, the person, not the object. A logical person would not blame a car for the death of an innocent if an intoxicated or irresponsible person took complete control of the said vehicle.
Guns have been a part of American culture since the beginning of our government. Fathers have taken young (8-18 or even younger) boys hunting and taught them gun-safety/disipline. Thereby, eliminating the curiosity that causes most gun-related child accidents. A lack of education and knowledge on just what a gun is and the difference between a real one and one they see on cartoons that go BANG! with a little banner is the real problem.
School massacres are considerably new phenomena. There where days when almost every home had a gun, hunting was common, children could safely operate these weapons. Additionally, many schools offered target shooting and archery classes. It was not uncommon to even have a student bring in their own weapon from home to participate in school sponsored competition. Yet with all these weapons readily available and much less strict gun laws these school massacres were unheard of.
So are guns the problem?
I will not attempt to pinpoint what the problem is, but it is not constructive to dwell on false, emotionally driven, gun-hating nonsense.
P.S. If you believe any of this to make the slightest bit of sense, please educate yourselves in the issue of firearms. If that leads to a greater sense of importance to the 2nd amendment I encourage you to join and support pro-choice/ pro-gun organizations not necessarily limited to the NRA. Even though the have the most influence and are currently the most suited to represent you and fight for your rights.
Then take that newly acquired knowledge and take a minute to educate others that are misinformed.
+1 Fact laden and well written. Beat it into their heads...
The libtards quit reading it when you stated you are a NRA member. Should have put that at the end
Wow... I hadn't seen the "angle" where you compare the number of "bad apple" CCW holders to the number of "bad apple" police officers, but it is extremely sound both intellectually and from a gut-check approach.
More cops turn bad than concealed weapons holders. Yet we've got cops armed to the teeth and we accept the possibility of bad apples because as a group they provide such a tremendous benefit to our safety and security.
Very interesting, and good letter.