Friday, October 7, 2011

Why I support campus carry

I tend to ground my arguments against gun control on the Constitution, facts, and basic logic, since the positions of anti-gunners fail on those merits alone.  That said, the obvious human component that goes along with the anti-gun crowds denial of rights should not be overlooked.

That denial of rights, and the creation of arbitrary, feel-good bullshit like "gun-free zones" causes immediate harm to those who would otherwise retain a means of self protection.  That is why stories like this one make me so angry.  I'm nearly as angry with gun control folks as I am with the actual criminals.  They have blood on their hands in cases like this.

Were it not for their BS restrictions Amanda Collins wouldn't have been disarmed and at the mercy of a violent rapist that night.  What's more, another young woman, Brianna Denison, might very well still be alive today if Ms. Collins had not been denied the means to defend herself.  Instead one young woman is dead and another has had to suffer through the kind of violent ordeal that no woman should ever have to.  This is the world anti-gunners want for us, for all of us.

As Ms. Collins said,

"I don't understand why (the state) trusts good, responsible people to be able to have their firearm across the street, and as soon as they cross an arbitrary line, they somehow lose all reason and ability to be able to be competent with that responsibility. It makes no sense to me at all."

It makes no sense, but then it's not meant to.  We're not meant to understand.  For the anti's it's about keeping those icky guns out of as many places as possible, and if that means they have to be bigoted, stomp on rights, or imperil the lives of students like Collins then so be it.

I often wonder what gun control supporters would say if they were face to face with someone like Amanda.  I doubt they'd say anything, being too scared or too cowardly to defend their position.

4 comments:

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"By the time any student could get a gun, when they were attacked by someone else with a gun if they went for their gun, it would be a bad outcome."

This is another argument that always pisses me off. How many stories do we see where the attacker had a gun out and pointed at the victim, but the victim still manages to pull their own gun and shoot or scare off the attacker? How many where the victim manages to use the attacker's own gun against them? Colin Goddard had enough time to pull out his cell phone, dial 911, and be connected to the police before he was shot - how many people could have shot the killer in that same amount of time? But somehow being a student makes it impossible?

Unless by "bad outcome" he means bad for the attacker?

Bubblehead Les. said...

Good news on this front, though: Someone down in Florida is suing the University of North Florida for its "No Guns Allowed on Campus Policy." Seems that new Law down there that allows one to Sue the Political Elite for Laws and Regs that don't follow the State's Preemption applies to Universities because they aren't considered "Public Schools", and thus are NOT covered under the "Restricted Zones" such as Grade Schools, Jails, Mental Hospitals, etc. And with the current Governor and Legislature, it doesn't look like they will be.

Of course, some Liberal Anti-Gun Judge will stick his/her nose into this suit, but, hey, it's Forward Progress.

mike's spot said...

These stories always hit close to home because I work at two Universities now. Sadly I don't know if we will ever get academe to be reasonable with regards to self defense.

RonF said...

There's a blog run by a lesbian Episcopal priest who is a gay rights activist called "An Inch At A Time". That's why they try to have all these special "gun-free" zones. They want to start there and expand it eventually to the whole country. The tide was running their way for a while, but with the help of the Supreme Court it's going back.