Posted by
Kenneth G. Davenport on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:37:45 PM
The mass murder that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech this week is a terrible and tragic event. Innocent kids sitting in class, hoping to gain knowledge that will embolden their future, are cut down with ruthless efficiency by a cold-blooded killer. As information comes out about Cho Seung-Hui we will know more about the psychosis that lead him to this heinous act. I'll leave that analysis up to the professionals.
But what I will say now is that those who were killed were like lambs lead to slaughter. Helpless and defenseless. Why so? Because Virginia Tech was under a self-imposed ban on the carrying of concealed weapons on campus, part of the broader effort in the wake of Columbine to create "gun free" zones on school property. The goal of these efforts is to create a safe environment for students by ensuring that no one will be carrying a firearm, irregardless of whether a legal concealed-carry permit has been issued by the state or local authorities. When you cross the campus threshold, you check your gun at the door.
And, while this may protect against the minuscule chance of a firearm being used to settle some petty argument over calculus theorems, it has the effect of ensuring that the campus becomes a kill zone. Like most gun-control laws, this rule is based on a fundamental flaw in logic: those who commit crimes break laws. This includes prohibitions against carrying and using guns, as well as the violent acts they commit with them. Those who do obey gun restrictions are those who are most likely to be the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrators. Pretty simple.
Of course, logic is never at the heart of these kind of laws. Emotion is. The simple fact is that having gun-free zones is designed to give us a sense of feel-good security. They are not consistent with the facts, which overwhelmingly tell us that most criminals pray on the weak and are rarely looking for a fight, and are only emboldened by the knowledge that they are unlikely to be confronted with someone with a gun for self-protection. Studies show consistently that areas with more lenient conceal-carry laws have less gun crime, not more. The reason for this seems obvious to me: When you are uncertain whether your intended victim can shoot back or not, you tend to be much more circumspect in your actions.
Whether or not this would have stopped Cho Seung-Hui from committing this atrocity is unclear. But what is clear is that it is very possible that if the teacher or any of the students in that class could have fired back, it is unlikely that 32 people would now be dead. Yes, it's a sad commentary that an armed classroom should be our antidote to this kind of threat. But we live in a world where real evil exists. We can pass laws that make us feel good and embolden those who seek to harm us. Or we can deal with reality and admit that we should provide ourselves, under proper laws and guidance, with a fighting chance to protect ourselves.