“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. . . .” —A Wise Saying
“A firearm in the hands of a righteous defender, whether police officer or civilian, is a tool for goodness in the world. A firearm in the hands of a criminal or madman a tool for evil. Intentions matter.” —Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Politicians Promoting Victim Disarmament Have Blood on Their Hands
Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, the Legacy Media—and every proponent of victim disarmament who has made it more difficult for those who would defend innocent life to do so—have blood on their hands. Victim-disarmament promoters Shepard Smith and Bill Nelson are already calling for measures to be implemented to make it even harder for Americans to defend themselves against bad guys like the Valentine’s Day shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Shame on the entire “gun-control” crowd for causing the needless slaughter of so many in recent years! For it is these ill-intentioned policy-makers, who have worked to deprive so many sane, law-abiding Americans of their Constitutional civil right to protect innocent lives with firearms, causing so many to pay the ultimate price.
John Lott, in his books More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, argues that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime. Lott notes in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that defensive gun use is generally underreported, that only shootings that result in a dead body tend to be reported by news agencies. Lott writes in More Guns, Less Crime that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.”
Before Lott, there was Gary Kleck, who conducted a famous survey of 5,000 households, back in 1994, in order to obtain data from which to derive estimates of defensive gun use among the populace. Kleck estimated, from his data, that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use for the purpose of self-protection against criminals. The National Crime Victimization Survey has estimated 500,000 occurrences by way of contrast. Much of the disparity between studies of defensive gun use, in general, seems to lie in how researchers choose to define “defensive gun use.” Kleck, for example, counts the brandishing of a weapon, without discharging it, as a legitimate defensive act, since it is often reported by carriers of self-defense weapons that the simple showing of their weaponry will stop criminals in their tracks and turn them away.
In an article entitled Guns and Self-Defense, Kleck has written quite eloquently about the importance of allowing people to choose to fight fire with fire, if need be: “Economic injustice, a history of racism, and other factors have created dangerous conditions in many places in America. Police cannot realistically be expected to provide personal protection for every American, and indeed are not even legally obliged to do so. Although gun ownership is no more an all-situations, magical source of protection than the police, it can be a useful source of safety in addition to police protection, burglary alarms, guard dogs, and all the other resources people exploit to improve their security. These sources are not substitutes for one another. Rather, they are complements, each useful in different situations. Possession of a gun gives its owner an additional option for dealing with danger. If other sources of security are adequate, the gun does not have to be used; but where other sources fail, it can preserve bodily safety and property in at least some situations.
“People sympathetic toward gun control yet skeptical about its likely impact sometimes note that although a world in which there were no guns would be desirable, it is also unachievable. The evidence raises a more radical possibility–that a world in which no one had guns would actually be less safe than a hypothetical one in which nonaggressors had guns and aggressors did not.
“If gun possession among prospective victims tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not, in and of itself, a social good. To disarm noncriminals in the hope that this might indirectly help reduce access to guns among criminals is a very high-stakes gamble, and the risks will not be reduced by pretending that crime victims rarely use guns for self-defense.”
How Schools Might Defend Themselves: First, a Code of Silence
For armed defense, without incurring large costs to the schools, districts might embark on enlisting willing concealed-carry license holders from among the teacher corps to bring weapons to school, according to a strict code of silence. To avoid the carriers of firearms becoming publicly outed, and thus risk being targeted by any potential shooters, a code of silence must be enforced that is binding on all who work in the school. One rule might be that no one is allowed to mention the name of an armed defender aloud in public.
Defending the School: Second, Rules of Engagement
In order to render the firearms absolutely safe, while they are in the school, there are rules of engagement which, if utilized, would ensure the safety of all silent weaponry. So, here are the rules: 1) All handguns will be kept unloaded, until such time as a firearm can be heard being discharged on the school campus; 2) upon hearing the report of a firearm, teachers would insert magazines into their magazine pistols and chamber the first round, or, alternately, use speedloaders to enable revolvers, before reholstering their pistols; and 3) upon coming into range of an active shooter, weapons would be unholstered for use, while following all safety rules with regard to the competent use of firearms to protect innocent lives.
So, here is how this would look: A teacher shows up to school with her or his unloaded weapon holstered and concealed on her or his person, the weapon never leaving the physical possession of the teacher; a loaded magazine or a speedloader, depending upon the type of pistol, would also be kept concealed on the person of the teacher bearing arms; and, upon the appearance of an active shooter on campus, the teacher would prepare her or his weapon for discharge and reholster, only drawing it for use upon coming into proximity of an active shooter. An appropriate command to a trusted student during this activity might be, “Call 9-1-1!”
The Aftermath: Making a Statement to Police
Every teacher acting as a first responder should also be given a protocol for how to act and speak after having discharged a firearm. The school might decide on a policy such as this: 1) Identify yourself to police; 2) briefly explain what the attacker did, but using general terms only (“He shot at me,” or “He tried to kill me and my students”); 3) if the shooter escaped the scene, describe him to police; 4) if you think you might be wounded, ask to go to the hospital; 5) if there is important evidence lying about or fact witnesses in the area, point them out to police; 6) tell the officer you wish to speak to a lawyer before making a detailed legal statement. These rules are in line with the advice given out by the Concealed Carry Association. The brevity of description is recommended, due to the fact that, after such a traumatic event as being involved in a shooting, the psychological effects will include not being able to remember precisely how many shots were taken or exactly where the assailant was standing, or a whole other range of details that one might easily misreport during the stress of the moment. This often opens defenders to accusations of lying and could easily make them targets of a district attorney who does not believe that anyone other than police should be shooting criminals.
Educating the Public
It must always be kept in mind that educating parent groups, like the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), will be an important activity. Every school will have to identify an able spokesperson who might speak to groups of parents and other community organizations. Considerable lobbying of parents and, in the case of school districts, board members, may be necessary before policies might be adopted. The truth that should be pointed out is that, in areas of the country that have been increasingly disarmed, due to “gun control,” the rate of death by handgun is actually higher than in areas where gun use enjoys fewer restrictions. For example, Utah is the state with the fewest handgun rules, according to the Brady Campaign, and it possesses the distinction of having the lowest murder rate by gun—0.97 out of 100,000 citizens—while California, the state with the most gun restrictions, according to the Brady Campaign, has the highest murder rate by gun—with 3.25 gun murders per 100,000 citizens. Curiously, even though Progressives know all of this, they immorally insist on policies of criminal empowerment and victim disarmament, perhaps due to the fact that they would rather control people than save their lives. In other words, it is not really about gun control—but people control!
It Is Time to Stop Sacrificing the Lives of Our Loved Ones
It is high time that We the People stop giving power-hungry politicians the ability to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves. More people need to stick up for the right to protect themselves and their loved ones. The defense of innocent life is not only a good idea, it is a Constitutional civil right. And it is a right that needs to be exercised more by the American citizenry, not less.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com