Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Resistance

Firearms necessary for personal, political protection; disarmed population not safe

Published: Sunday, March 13, 2011

Updated: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:03

asdf

Erin Logan

We'll always be able to trust the government with a monopoly on force. Cooperate when threatened, and you won't be hurt. The assumptions behind gun control laws are so blatantly and dangerously wrong that it must take some intellect to trick oneself into believing they're true.

In December 2000, five friends in their twenties decided to cooperate when Jonathan and Reginald Carr barged into their Wichita home, demanding money. The victims offered no resistance, hoping that the pair would take their valuables and leave. Instead, the attackers ordered the three men into a closet and proceeded to rape the two women for several hours. Then the intruders started killing people. After watching the killers execute her fiancée, one woman survived by crawling, bleeding and naked, through the snow towards Christmas lights. According to a July 16, 2002 column in FrontPage Magazine, she later reported that, although the rapists left their firearms lying about the room, neither she nor Aquinas preschool teacher Heather Muller moved to grab one.

Resisting is only likely to make one's situation worse if an assailant has both superior firearms expertise and purely financial motives. Even though Heather Muller had never fired a weapon in her life, for example, picking one up could not have made her situation worse. Her attackers were as interested in harming her as they were in taking her money.

Imagine how different the story might have been had one of the five possessed a weapon. Their chances of survival could only have improved.

I'm disgusted when supporters of strict gun laws label their opponents as heartless or uncaring; gun control leaves victims little choice other than futile cooperation with those who, like Jonathan and Reginald Carr, have no intention of sparing them from unimaginable suffering and death. Condemning people to defenseless victimhood to protect them from accidental injury is no more compassionate than depriving them of water or heat to protect them from drowning or suffocation, each five times more common than accidental firearm death, according to the 2000 National Vital Statistics Report by the Centers for Disease Control.

In 1994, criminologists at Florida State University conducted the National Self Defense Survey. It found that guns are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, or once every 13 seconds. In the majority of these attacks, the assailant initiated violence, was a stranger to the intended victim and was deterred without any shots being fired. If the assailant intended to kill someone in 15.7 percent of these cases, a conservative estimate, a life is saved by the defensive use of a firearm every 1.3 minutes.

In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho walked into Virginia Tech's gun-free "safe zone" and effortlessly murdered 30 people in the span of nine minutes before police arrived. I shudder when I try to understand the mind of someone who would rather let an execution-style massacre run its course uncontested than risk "making things worse" by allowing an action with the potential to stop or slow a killer.

A 1997 study by the FBI, as reported by W. Scott Lewis of the Houston Chronicle, found that most exchanges of gunfire last less than 10 seconds before one side is disabled. It should be obvious bystanders are not likely to be caught in the crossfire if a shootout lasts only 10 seconds. Of the 20 U.S. campuses that allow concealed carry, none has seen an instance of gun violence. In fact, a 2001 study by William E. Sturdevant found that concealed permit holders in Texas are nearly eight times less likely to commit violent crime than those without permits.

Growing up during the Bush administration, I was constantly amazed by people who warned of an increasingly corrupt and oppressive government but felt that only the government could be trusted to have guns. I could not imagine a more absurdly contradictory pair of political positions. If you're willing to disarm a population, you had better trust not only the politicians that are in power today, but any politicians that may come to power tomorrow.

Suppose we trust the police to protect us from criminals, but our children inherit a police force less effective than ours. Suppose we trust the government to safeguard our liberty, but our grandchildren inherit a government less interested in liberty than ours. The Second Amendment was written by men who had just thrown off an oppressive government and foresaw a day when their descendants might need to do the same.

In 2009, as two intruders kicked in his door, North Carolina man RC Soles shot one of them and chased off the other. The story would be inspiring if Soles, a state senator, wasn't a longtime advocate of strict gun control laws. Supporters of gun control either aren't taking a concrete approach to the issue, or, like Soles, would act to save their own lives in situations where they would advise inaction to others.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Mark
Sun Mar 27 2011 22:19
Nice work Ian! cya round campus
the KHAN!
Fri Mar 25 2011 01:06
It's amazing how much people despise the idea of their countrymen having the right to their own preservation of life. odd that these bleeding heart liberals would stand against the ability to stand up for yourself if need be.

Shocking? No, not at all.

Anonymous
Fri Mar 18 2011 14:43
To all the gun-control idiots:
If you want to live in a society that bans all civilian-owned firearms then pack up all your stuff and move to North Korea. After a few days - no, HOURS - see how much you like it..... Morons!
.
You make me sick - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY - you do not deserve to live in America!
Ian Huyett
Thu Mar 17 2011 16:18
At "call the police": If you trust the police force enough to disarm a population, you're trusting not just the current police force, but any future police force, to be both effective and honest.

The fact that you think one of them should have made a run for the phone indicates to me that you don't think cooperating with an attacker is a good idea. So why not allow innocent people the means to defend themselves?

At anti-NRA: I appreciate the reply. My suggestion was that it was fallacious to dismiss my argument as such with no explanation. You clarified in 1 that you were actually going after the NRA, which I didn't mention in my article.

What's wrong with 3? Seems consistent to me. The NRA says a weapon could have prevented some deaths, so they'd be happy if deaths had been prevented.

Although my argument isn't contingent on the NRA being reliable, I haven't seen them make this slippery slope argument. Can you point me to the particular statement?

The NRA doesn't imprison people for victimless crimes or start needless wars. Whatever tyranny you might accuse it of doesn't rival that of the government you'd trust with your grandchildren's safety.

Anonymous
Thu Mar 17 2011 10:12
Hi Ian, Anonymous Wed Mar 16 2011 13:19 here. (1) I was commenting on the research and arguments posed by NRA, not on your research. (2) I wasn't presenting a logical agrument (was I?) so I don't think I could have commited a logical fallacy. (3) I was commenting on the fact that NRA seemed oddly silent on the Tuscon shootings, other than to blame the tradgedy on restrictive gun laws and left-wing media. I suspect the message from NRA would be much different if an armed, rather than an unarmed, citizen had disarmed the shooter. (4) NRA's use of logical fallacies and half-truths is monumental, but here's just one example: The "slippery slope" fallacy - Any laws that restrict the sale of or access to guns will lead to the government taking away all guns from all citizens. That's a pretty big leap, and NRA doesn't address the series of steps that would lead from one event to the other. (5) I was suggesting that NRA is the "tyrant," as in a tyrannical government that must be defended against. Did I get everything?
Anonymous
Thu Mar 17 2011 00:02
So if these people had a gun it would have stopped the rape? And calling the police wouldnt? Sounds like nobody called 911, probably because they didnt have the time. Guess what? it takes 2 seconds to call 911, and im pretty sure youre more likely to have a phone near you than a gun. Are you really going to argue the solution to somebody breaking into your house is owning a gun you can run and find, load, find the intruder, and shoot them? Good luck in life...
Ian Huyett
Wed Mar 16 2011 15:56
Anonymous: If you can defend yourself against an armed assailant without a weapon, more power to you. But good luck placing all your faith in this ability when faced with an armed murderer or tyrant.

How about explaining how my research is poor? Identify some logical fallacies instead of committing them yourself.

Anonymous
Wed Mar 16 2011 13:19
Ian mentions the shootings at Virgiania Tech, but not the recent shootings in Tuscon. Why would that be? Is it because the shooter in Tuscon was stopped not by an armed citizen on the scene, but by an unarmed elderly woman? Boy, the NRA must hate when that happens! If only the armed citizen could have gotten off a shot, NRA would finally have the evidence it needs. Until then, they're stuck with the logical fallacies and poor research they use to prevent even the discussion of laws that would help prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Tho NRA is deadly effective in using it's power, sort of like a tyrant.
Anonymous
Tue Mar 15 2011 19:53
Spot on.

Finally, a college op ed writer who hasn't a brain full of mush.

Ian Huyett
Tue Mar 15 2011 19:42
Varrell: Only the government and criminals, apparently.

Anonymous at 5:21: Not only are you five times more likely to be killed by water or fire than your own weapon, you're 20 times more likely to be killed by lightning than by a concealed permit holder (in Texas, no less).

varrell
Tue Mar 15 2011 14:28
" NO guns should be legal for the populace. ".......So you mean only the government should be trusted with guns? The same government that uses their guns to start illegal wars and kill children for collecting firewood? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Dirk
Tue Mar 15 2011 09:52
Anonymous (the one who posted the comment Tuesday, March 11th @ 5:21am) - I sure hope your comments are sarcastic, because everything you posted has no basis in fact whatsoever. People do in fact hunt with handguns. Handguns are very effective tools for personal defense. Making them illegal would only ensure that criminals could attack the law-abiding with impunity. If you are opposed to the private ownership of defensive firearms, you are in favor of a society where the strong prey on the weak.

Lastly, it is clear that you do not understand the 2nd Amendment at all. It was added to the Constitution to protect the rights of "The People" to possess firearms for defense against criminals and oppressive government.

Here are some quotes to illustrate this: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

REDWHTBLUE
Tue Mar 15 2011 09:05
People in Texas hunt wild boar with handguns...
Anonymous
Tue Mar 15 2011 05:21
Yeah... Are you aware that you are more likely to die from a gun death if you own a gun than if you dont. And its really pretty stupid that handguns are legal for persons other than law enforcement. Really all it offers is a form of "protection". People dont go hunting with pistols, but they do go out and shoot other people. If all handguns were illegal, it would make things simple for law enforcement, and make things way safer for everyone. And while Im at it (cause im sure people will be yelling reading at this) if you look at the Framer's intent in writing the second ammendment, you could really argue that (unless you are hunting) NO guns should be legal for the populace.
REDWHTBLUE
Mon Mar 14 2011 22:24
For those who live in a bubble, If you were raped for several hours, barely escaped with your life, bleeding, naked, crawling through the snow for help, I bet you would be the poster child for the NRA today!
Anonymous
Mon Mar 14 2011 21:21
Excellent article. There's a saying, "When seconds count the police are only minutes away." This isn't meant to bash police, it simply states the obvious: we live in a world where we can't avoid taking up some measure of self-proection.

Ever notice the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers? Tibet is a classic example of what happens when people don't want to defend themselves. They get taken advantage of. Tibetans don't believe in violence or armed resistance which explains why the Chinese have managed to control Tibet for so long. Some liberals in the US will carry signs and sport bumper stickers to proclaim the injustice of the Chinese. But, these same liberals will never understand that the answer to the Tibetan problem is simple: armed resistance.

Again, great article.

Bill Rice
Class of 1990

Anonymous
Mon Mar 14 2011 16:26
"thanks for all your worthless anecdotal evidence."
That's all anti-second amendment writers use to try and make points, at least this columnist used a real life situation to make a point
Ian Huyett
Mon Mar 14 2011 15:53
5 Corpses: So if they're doomed regardless, it's better to accept torment and death than injure one of the attackers?

Vile Trash: Excellent rebuttal, sir. You really refuted all my points.

Anonymous
Mon Mar 14 2011 15:45
Some comments just demonstrate the Left's hatred of self-defense. They celebrate dead victims. The Left hates self-defense because they hate to see people taking control over their own lives and safety. Since the government can't protect you, you have a duty to be a victim. This from people calling themselves the "reality based community."
Anonymous
Mon Mar 14 2011 15:39
uhhh...ya you totally rocked that paper Ian!!! whoooo

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In