“Legislation allowing concealed weapons on public university campuses thankfully was shot down again this week,” an editorial in TheNewsStar.com pronounces.
The editors are expressing gratitude for the failure of House Bill 413 by Rep. Ernest Wooton to make it out of the Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice after the panel voted 8 – 3 on Wednesday to kill the bill. In other words, they are grateful the political overclass has told them and everyone else "No, you may not have a choice in matters pertaining to defending your own lives--we will mandate those decisions for you."
“No college campus needs students, faculty and staff wandering around packing guns, waiting for the next opportunity for a shoot-out,” the editorial proclaims, equating responsible adults having the means and capability to defend themselves with lethal force opportunists who can scarcely constrain their twitching trigger fingers.
Nice.
Naturally, rather than bring in anyone who knows what they’re talking about in terms of self-defense, the paper turns to “Human Target” Colin Goddard, whose sole expertise appears to be making sure he’s utterly useless to himself and others in an active shooter situation, and then disparaging those who would refuse to be a victim.
In his view, guns are worse than useless for defense, they are a liability:
Goddard pointed out, "If that statement were true, the United States of America, a country with something like 300 million guns, would be the safest country in the world."
What’s intentionally left unsaid is the effect of high “gun control”/high crime areas in skewing the numbers. Having attended the recent NRA Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh, where over 70,000 visitors, many carrying concealed, conducted themselves in an absolutely peaceful manner, and where there were zero reports of violent crime occurring, I’d advise the hoplophobes not to be so cocky disparaging the guns/safety nexus. The 4 million-plus members of the NRA are among the most heavily-armed—and peaceable—people on the planet. And based on results, the safest.
And again, naturally, the editorial trots out the obligatory career-motivated police administrators to tell us why we ordinary folks being able to defend ourselves is a bad idea. Because apparently, all imaginable campus defense situations involve active mass shooters, and besides, the cops train themselves when encountering a firefight to make no distinction between aggressor and defender, but instead to just kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.
That’s what they’re saying! Which makes one wonder why any LEO in his right mind would accept a plain-clothes assignment…
Advocating for “Only Ones" notwithstanding, the editorialists seem oblivious to the irony of officers missing their target and endangering everyone at the scene. That someone under attack may already know who the bad guy is, or that chances are the police won’t arrive until the smoke has cleared aren’t even mentioned.
But when police do get there, look out: We’re told they won’t “shoot to wound,” not that anybody but the fictional Lone Ranger would even consider such an absurd response. It’s certainly not something that anyone with even minimal training would consider.
Why the editorialists don’t realize that even bringing that up makes their credentials suspect is a fair challenge to issue. Just who are “Authorized Journalists” David B. Petty and Kathy Spurlock, and “community representatives” William Harrison, Stephanie Smith and Chris Mapp, and what are their qualificationsto represent themselves as competent to sway public opinion on armed self-defense issues? And if they bring nothing to the table other than ignorant, fear-based bias, how does dissuading people from protecting themselves not amount to journalistic malpractice?
If an adult can’t be trusted to keep and bear arms on a campus, he or she can’t be trusted to keep and bear them anywhere. Does anyone doubt that’s the default mindset these hand-wringing manure-spreaders are operating under?
Also see:
Photo © 2011 Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, social media sites, etc. Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments