If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard somebody start a statement with, “I’m a gun owner but…” I’d probably be very wealthy. I’ve never actually heard anything intelligent comes after that well-known opener either and this is no exception:
I am about as pro-firearms as they come; I am an NRA member, target shooter and hunter, and speaking as a student with a concealed firearm permit, I still believe this campus is not the place to be carrying. There is absolutely no reason to carry a concealed firearm
His argument? Well… it’s downright idiotic:
The one thing no one should ever sacrifice is safety. Events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech and Penn State are very rare. But they arose, because people did not follow university rules and precautions.
That’s right, Virginia Tech and Penn State were results of people not following university rules and precautions. If only the murdering sons of bitches would have obeyed the rules and not brought guns onto campus everything would have been swell those days. Maybe the murderers didn’t know they weren’t supposed to bring guns on campus; I’m sure they would have returned home upon seeing a sign informing them that the campuses were gun-free zones.
Idiot, dumb ass, retard, moron, and fucking dip ship all seem inadequate to explain the level of stupidity this person’s statement emanates. Were that the only statement he made it wouldn’t be so bad but he keeps piling on the stupid:
One point to think about is if, and a very big if at that, permits were to be issued specific to University Park grounds and a situation occurred in which there was a shooting on campus the campus would turn into the Wild West. Practice is one thing that many amateur shooters lack and a crowded campus where all hell breaks loose would be a time when every inch of accuracy matters.
The problem with the “Wild” West is that it wasn’t very wild. I would also submit the fact that no shootout would likely occur for two reasons: dead people don’t shoot and most of the bastards who’ve shot up schools ended up offing themselves the second resistance arrived. Were a person with a carry permit able to shoot the murderous gunman the situation would be concluded in short order and if the permit holder was unable to get a clean shot the situation would likely be concluded shortly anyways as the murderous gunman took his own life in an act of sheer cowardice. Obviously logic wasn’t the strong suit of the person who wrote this article though.
But to ensure further protection. I think anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm should be required to pass a vision and shooting test. The shooting test should include both moving and stationary targets. Through these added precautions, we could be assured that we are placing firearms in skilled hands.
What the author is really saying is that those with poor vision should be prohibited from defending themselves. It seems the author believes people with poor vision should be removed from the gene pool less they breed and are able to pass their genetics of poor vision onto their offspring. Maybe the author was a fan of eugenics. Furthermore he believes everybody should be required to receive training for unlikely scenarios before they are granted the privilege of exercising one of their supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Why do I say training for situations involved stationary and moving targets is an unlikely scenario? Because a large majority (83.5%) of self-defense situations involving a firearm require only the presentation of the weapon [PDF]. It’s good to be training in handling a vast number of potential scenarios but such training should not be mandatory.
If a situation would arise on campus when students had the right to hold concealed weapon it would be absolute nightmare. But the people to bring calm to a situation like this shouldn’t be students or staff members — the people to calm the situation would be the emergency responders.
Yes the emergency responders should be the ones to bring calm to the situation, you know when they get there anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes after somebody makes the initial call to 911. The reason body counts get so high at many of these shootings is due to the amount of time it takes emergency responders to actually respond. What the author doesn’t realize is that instant teleportation technology is not something we have access to yet so anybody wanting to get from one point to another (let’s say from a police station to a college campus) have to physically make the trip. Usually this involves hopping into a car and driving there but one could also walk if they so chose.
We have emergency responders for a reason: protection and safety. It is their job and we have to stand behind them. At any point a responder could lose their life. Each one knows the risk, but they accept it because they have taken an oath to protect the citizens.
Emphasis mine. It seems that while the author realizes emergency responders may lose their life at any point college students and faculty members will remain entirely unharmed.
No matter what form of emergency the first step is to size up the problem; the better the size up of the problem faster the emergency will get solved. If the responders can not figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of Penn Stater might be lost.
If the responder can figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of a student or faculty member might be lost. Emergency responders usually don’t respond until there has been an emergency meaning it’s likely somebody has already been shot before 911 is even called. The sooner the situation is dealt with the smaller the window of opportunity for the murder. Allowing faculty members and students to legally carry firearms can drop the response time of mass shootings dramatically as there are personell on campus capable of ending the situation.
Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in agricultural systems management. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
What that footnote should have said is, “Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in a career track that doesn’t study self-defense situations in any sense. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer in two types of emergency response that don’t directly deal with ending mass shooting scenarios. Basically he may be very intelligent in agriculture systems management, firefighting, and emergency medical fields but he knows little, if anything, about self-defense scenarios. Email him at email@example.com.”
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject but there is much wrong with being ignorant on a subject and having a strong opinion regarding it.
3 thoughts on “Stop Me if You’ve Heard This Before”
I do not think mass shootings are common enough to use as criteria for deciding gun policy. However, if you are going to use them, the actual evidence (rather than mere emotions and “common sense”) is clearly in favor of carry. Mass shootings end with no further loss of innocent life as soon as their is return fire–I have not heard of a single exception to this.
I agree that school shootings are rare enough that making gun policies based on those scenarios isn’t valid. Sadly those advocating gun control laws seldom present valid arguments but instead base their demands on irrational feelings.
People like this guy make me furious. As you pointed out in your entry – there is not a single intelligent thought in his article. How can he say he is pro-firearms when he is pro-removing-our-rights-to-firearms? People like this shouldn’t count themselves among gun-owners. I find it insulting that he considers himself pro-firearm. What a moron. Just because someone owns a firearm, that doesn’t make them pro-gun. These people just help further the arguments of anti-gunners, and work against our rights.
Comments are closed.