Candles to Gun Fights

The gun controllers will don their dancing shoes and hold this out as ANOTHER example of why honest citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. Sorta like, outcomes based, just the way they planned.

Posted by rexrs at February 15, 2008 10:40 AM

Die-hards are always fascinating, and in the case of the die-hard defenders of gun-free zones I see many of them claim ignorance or befuddlement on how such disasters can be prevented by allowing guns.

So your reference to "how can a gunman resist" gives inspiration. I'm seeing a thirty-second PSA, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, of a twelve-step program for murdering gunmen. "My name is Charlie and I'm a gun-free-zone-aholic" one of them could say. And he'd explain how everything seems normal until he hears those three magic words, and goes NUTS thinking about those unarmed students just waiting to be mowed down...irresistible.

I know, I know, I'm talking about people way too far-gone to be convinced. But as the other side likes to say -- it changes one mind, it's WORTH it. That's assuming it would ever get a green light.

Posted by Morgan K Freeberg at February 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Speaking of "depraved," many of our policy-makers, judges, wonks, administrators, etc. have demonstrated a depraved indifference to the concerns and safety of ordinary citizens and the community at large. They have turned the Bill fo Rights into a "Protected Species Act" for criminals and the badly behaved.

As I recall, showing "depraved indifference" is actually a crime for which one can be arrested, tried, and punished. NOT if you hold the reins of power, however.

Posted by Roderick Reilly at February 15, 2008 2:57 PM

I wonder how many parents who felt that the school's "gun-free zone" policy was a safe and sane idea when they sent their children to the school think so today.

They probably still think that way. For them, the next thing they'd want to try would be a ban on all private ownership of firearms.

Posted by Blacque Jacques Shellacque at February 15, 2008 6:07 PM

Here's the Socratic dialogue that I always make with anti-gun people that always drives them crazy:

Me: Would you be in favor of more police on campuses?
Them (suspiciously): Yes, of course.
Me: But then, most of them would have to be undercover, or else the killer would just wait until they go somewhere else or kill them first, right.
Them: Yes.
Me: So you're in favor of lots more guns in "gun free" zones? As long as only the government has them?
Them: Yes.
Me: So, you think that the government is morally superior to the average citizen? That putting a badge on someone means that they won't break the law? Are you in favor of increasing the police force by a factor of ten, and having them hang around in disguise, to prevent this but you are against a volunteer citizenry, properly trained and checked, carrying concealed weapons? Is there a logical explanation for that? When did liberals support creating a secret police and enlarging our law enforcement? Wouldn't it just be easier to let law-abiding citizens carry guns?

Posted by Zach Foreman at February 23, 2008 9:10 PM

See, I understand this concept, and so do you. Which is why it was gut-turning for me to enter the limits of a particular city in which I once lived, and see that it proudly declared itself "a nuclear-free zone."


Posted by Fran at March 5, 2008 2:26 AM