Commentary - Aaron Keith Harris: Self-defense must be factor in equation

But now is precisely the time to try to teach it, because others are using the horrible occasion to advocate more restrictive laws against guns. Changes that, if enacted, could not thwart other such massacres, but would make them far more common.

The lesson is this: An environment that allowed guns to be carried by normal people is the only sensible thing that could have either prevented the attack or stopped the attacker before he killed 32 people.

Liviu Librescu is rightly hailed for his courageous, life-saving stand against the killer. Librescu had no weapon, so he could only use his body as a shield for his students. But what if Librescu, a brave man with the ability to function in crisis, had a gun? He would have had a fighting chance to save more lives, including his own.

What if either Emily Hilscher or Ryan Clark, the killer’s first two victims, had a weapon in West Ambler Johnston Hall Dormitory? Maybe the attack on Norris Hall would not have happened at all. What if Kevin Tyler Sterne, the Eagle Scout who saved his own life by improvising a tourniquet for his wounded leg, had the right to carry a pistol?

All of those what-ifs will remain just that, because Virginia Tech had deliberately exempted itself from Virginia’s gun laws, which allow residents to obtain a concealed carry permit or to carry handguns openly without a permit.

The killer therefore knew, with a high degree of certainty, that he would not encounter any armed person until police arrived. Though he was clearly insane, the killer was able to plan the attack and prepare his posthumous explanation. The killer’s multimedia suicide note makes it clear that his actions were an attempt to assert control over others because he could not control his own situation. Maybe the prospect of being resisted would have caused the killer to abandon his fantasy.

The argument against the more-guns, less-crime theory is simple. If private gun ownership were banned and all guns were confiscated, professional criminals and other people with violent tendencies simply would not have access to a gun.

Just like drug users don’t have access to crack, coke, pot, meth and heroin. Law enforcement has completely failed to limit the production, distribution and use of drugs that have been illegal for decades. Why should anyone think it would be any different with guns?

Guns are here to stay in the United States. Criminals, lunatics and scofflaws will have them no matter what laws are passed. The only question is whether some ordinary, law-abiding citizens will have them too.

Common sense and an honest, unemotional look at the Virginia Tech massacre leads to the only right answer.

And then there is the Second Amendment. It does not grant us the right to own and carry guns. It protects the natural right each of us already has to choose whether to own and carry guns to defend our lives, liberty and property.

That right must continue to be protected because each of us has the moral responsibility and often, as Monday showed, the practical necessity to protect ourselves.

The most dangerous weapon will always be the mind of a man whose heart is dark. No law can ever change that, but sensible laws can help us have the choice to face that darkness unafraid.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.