A few weeks ago, the national Students for Conceal Carry on Campus (SCCC) organization held an empty holster protest in support of the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. To be specific, the right of licensed, conceal carry permit holders to exercise their right on campus.
What I found most interesting was the extremely reactionary predictions of doom and gloom from Soundoff callers and other voices in the area.
I'm not sure I see all the fuss. After all, it's never the law-abiding citizen that opens fire on innocent people in a public place.
So as I analyze the idea, I start by placing a high level of importance on individual responsibility (as I usually do) and therefore gravitate toward personal defense over institutional security.
Now, I know there are plenty of statistics about gun violence and accidental shootings. They're spouted all over the national media any time there's a single shooting. But we never hear about the benefits of gun ownership or the number of crimes prevented by concealed weapons because the government doesn't keep those statistics.
It doesn't track crimes averted because of the crisp and recognizable sound of a shotgun shell being loaded. Nor can it track how many times a hand on a gun inside a lady's purse gave that woman an air of power, which prevented an attack in the first place.
So, how could concealed carry on campus actually be positive?
Let's use this very extreme example (though the lesson applies to less extreme cases). Five terrorists, whose sole goal is to get their message to the world before they push the button, storm an elementary school and threaten to blow it up.
Before I get into this scenario, I'd like to reiterate the "very extreme" or very rare nature of this example. After all, the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is less than being killed by a doctor, prescription medication or the bathtub. Unfortunately, the media accentuates the unusual, so the solitary shooting or the rare terrorist attacks garners disproportional attention compared to the actual amount of people affected.
Back to the terrorists. Five hell-bent on destruction. Of course, they won't tell anyone about the blowing-up part. Instead, they will demand to make a televised political statement, the release of prisoners and the inclusion of the Versus channel in any TCN (Terrorist Cable Network) deluxe service package.
Then, when everyone's thinking, "What the..? Terrorists like hockey?" the terrorists will strike.
To sum up: five guys, powerful explosive, semi-automatic weapons and offspring.
If it were your kid, which method of preparation and security should their school enact?
Scenario Number One. The school has a strict no gun policy. No employee, except state licensed guards can possess a weapon on campus. Since, state licensed, officially authorized guards also require health insurance, payroll taxes etc. they don't come cheap. So, only three security guards possess firearms on campus.
Three vs. five - pistols vs. semi-automatics.
Scenario Number Two. The school has a regimented gun policy. Since no one under 21 can carry a concealed weapon, students are prohibited from bringing guns. However, any teacher or adult staff member may get a concealed carry on campus if state eligible to do so. This includes having no felonies, no drug charges of any kind, no mental health problems and meeting residency requirements.
In addition, permit holders would be required to pass a gun range test and take a tactical class, where students are trained in real life self-defense situations. Also, holder would keep guns in a biometrically locked box. Twelve teachers are properly permitted.
12 vs. five - pistols vs. semiautomatics.
Scenario Number Three: Every eligible, able-bodied staff member will be trained to carry concealed. In addition to individual training, the staff will be trained as a unit to handle larger emergencies and dangerous situations. (For those teachers who worry about weapons training taking up too much time, we'll do that instead of the CRCT).
Entire staff armed and trained in emergency situations vs. five unsuspecting terrorists.
Not a difficult decision for me.
Most of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence paid a heavy price for doing so. They knew the personal cost and burden of individual responsibility and signed anyway.
Too frequently today we shy away from that kind of personal responsibility. We want national healthcare, unemployment benefits, county schools, state-built roads, city parks and government protection from everything - including our own stupidity.
It's time for all of us to step up and become personally proficient in armed self-protection. After all, what country would dare attack 200 million armed Americans?
National defense solved. Bring 'em home.