A hat-tip to David Codrea at War On Guns for linking to this article.
I chose to post a comment to the article, I'll post it here as well:
A very interesting article, and one with a tone you do not often see on mainstream media outlets.
One thing you said interested me in particular though. Those of us who have gone through the background checks and training to carry a legal concealed weapon also believe that "no guns" signs encourage those bent on doing harm. As a group, we often tend to avoid locations who have posted such signs as a rule - since we are law abiding citizens (we have to be to have a concealed weapon permit by definition).
If the profile of an active shooter is indeed that they often turn the gun on themselves at the first sign of armed resistance, wouldn't having more people capable of armed resistance make sense?
While the (erroneous) point is often made that regular citizens with legal guns will do more harm than good in an active shooting situation by shooting each other and innocent bystanders, and how are Police to know they're the good guys, the basic idea is this: The guy you shoot is the one shooting people who are running and screaming. The guy you don't shoot is the one who has their gun out but is not shooting at people running and screaming.
While most folks with a legally concealed weapon aren't necessarily going to get involved in a situation like a mall shooting by throwing themselves into the fray, they will definitely defend themselves if attacked directly. And that's what you need. You need people who, when a sociopath comes into the building with a shotgun and opens fire, will fire back. Even if they don't hit him, they can potentially contain them long enough for the "experts" (Police) to arrive and take control, limiting the damage an active shooter can do.
Thank you for writing this article. I do hope folks will take a moment to think about the purpose a "no guns" sign really serves. In the game of life, gun beats paper - every time.
Giant Counting Robots!
3 weeks ago