An interesting article by a VA Tech student, 1 year after the shootings.
Gun control is based on false premises - Roanoke.com
Gun control is based on false premises
Bradford Wiles
A year has passed since the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and there are some assumptions upon which gun control is based that require investigation. Chief among them is the misplaced feeling that banning firearms somehow eradicates them.
When examining this notion, we can look for another example of a ban to give us a sense of the difference between banning and eradication. There are people in America known as illegal immigrants who are banned from being here. If the state cannot keep a person from coming into the country illegally, what possible hope does it have in banning a gun? What is to stop the illegal immigrant from bringing guns with him?
Contrary to gun control wishes, government bans do not equal eradication.
This leads to the next premise upon which gun control is based: Criminals obey the law. Compliance with laws is based on the honor system. Governments expect citizens to follow the law because they honor the society in which they live. The problem is, criminals do not honor the law.
Gun control advocates seem to believe that a criminal who is going to cause harm will not do so, not because murder is illegal, but because the gun he is going to use for murder is illegal. Gun control advocates expect, indeed require, criminals to respect and obey the law for their policy to work.
The third premise of gun control is based on faith in the police. The gun control position is that only the police should have guns. A central tenet of this position is that ordinary citizens do not need a gun because the police are there to protect you.
It was clear on April 16, 2007, that the police were nowhere to be found for more than nine minutes. When split seconds count, the police are long minutes away.
Even though police often arrive after a crime has been committed, the gun control slant is that police are highly trained professionals and thus know how to stop a violent criminal better than a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
A citizen does not need to be concerned about infringing on a criminal's rights and detaining the perpetrator, as required of the police. A citizen only needs to be able to defend him or herself. Often, just the knowledge that a victim is armed is enough to dissuade a criminal from continuing an assault.
Any number of highly trained professionals could be useful, but when they are not at the scene of the crime for minutes, an average citizen with a gun can be an effective counter to a violent attack.
Even more duplicitous is that the faith-in-the-police premise takes an utterly contrary turn when making the argument that they will not know whom to shoot when responding.
First, this position is spurious, as it has continually been shown that the police arrive after a crime has been committed, including here at Tech. Second, if they really were highly trained, wouldn't they know that the ones who are not pointing their guns at the police are not the criminals? Third, if given the choice between the possibility of being shot by the highly trained professional while shooting in self-defense and the certainty of being shot by an armed assailant while unarmed, I will choose the former every time.
Some have argued that even the First Amendment is not an absolute right, noting that one cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. If we applied the same logic as the gun control argument, our mouths would be taped shut when we enter a theater because someone might yell "fire."
Those who would exercise their Second Amendment rights are subjected to prior restraint, and thus prevented from carrying their gun, because they might do something illegal with it.
Even with their flawed assumptions exposed, what is especially insidious is that gun control does not work. The results of their policies are abject failures. Whether in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York or Chicago, gun control does not work.
At Virginia Tech, gun control did not work.
Gun bans do not mean guns disappear. Criminals do not abide by the honor code. The police are not readily available to protect you. The Second Amendment declares an individual right to keep and bear arms.
These are truths that the gun control advocate disregards. Please consider the assumptions for their argument when deciding your own position.
Bradford Wiles
Wiles is a graduate research assistant in the human development department at Virginia Tech.
A year has passed since the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and there are some assumptions upon which gun control is based that require investigation. Chief among them is the misplaced feeling that banning firearms somehow eradicates them.
When examining this notion, we can look for another example of a ban to give us a sense of the difference between banning and eradication. There are people in America known as illegal immigrants who are banned from being here. If the state cannot keep a person from coming into the country illegally, what possible hope does it have in banning a gun? What is to stop the illegal immigrant from bringing guns with him?
Contrary to gun control wishes, government bans do not equal eradication.
This leads to the next premise upon which gun control is based: Criminals obey the law. Compliance with laws is based on the honor system. Governments expect citizens to follow the law because they honor the society in which they live. The problem is, criminals do not honor the law.
Gun control advocates seem to believe that a criminal who is going to cause harm will not do so, not because murder is illegal, but because the gun he is going to use for murder is illegal. Gun control advocates expect, indeed require, criminals to respect and obey the law for their policy to work.
The third premise of gun control is based on faith in the police. The gun control position is that only the police should have guns. A central tenet of this position is that ordinary citizens do not need a gun because the police are there to protect you.
It was clear on April 16, 2007, that the police were nowhere to be found for more than nine minutes. When split seconds count, the police are long minutes away.
Even though police often arrive after a crime has been committed, the gun control slant is that police are highly trained professionals and thus know how to stop a violent criminal better than a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
A citizen does not need to be concerned about infringing on a criminal's rights and detaining the perpetrator, as required of the police. A citizen only needs to be able to defend him or herself. Often, just the knowledge that a victim is armed is enough to dissuade a criminal from continuing an assault.
Any number of highly trained professionals could be useful, but when they are not at the scene of the crime for minutes, an average citizen with a gun can be an effective counter to a violent attack.
Even more duplicitous is that the faith-in-the-police premise takes an utterly contrary turn when making the argument that they will not know whom to shoot when responding.
First, this position is spurious, as it has continually been shown that the police arrive after a crime has been committed, including here at Tech. Second, if they really were highly trained, wouldn't they know that the ones who are not pointing their guns at the police are not the criminals? Third, if given the choice between the possibility of being shot by the highly trained professional while shooting in self-defense and the certainty of being shot by an armed assailant while unarmed, I will choose the former every time.
Some have argued that even the First Amendment is not an absolute right, noting that one cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. If we applied the same logic as the gun control argument, our mouths would be taped shut when we enter a theater because someone might yell "fire."
Those who would exercise their Second Amendment rights are subjected to prior restraint, and thus prevented from carrying their gun, because they might do something illegal with it.
Even with their flawed assumptions exposed, what is especially insidious is that gun control does not work. The results of their policies are abject failures. Whether in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York or Chicago, gun control does not work.
At Virginia Tech, gun control did not work.
Gun bans do not mean guns disappear. Criminals do not abide by the honor code. The police are not readily available to protect you. The Second Amendment declares an individual right to keep and bear arms.
These are truths that the gun control advocate disregards. Please consider the assumptions for their argument when deciding your own position.
