Posted by
Pscyclone on Friday, February 15, 2008 11:53:57 AM
My condolences and prayers go out to the kith and kin for those affected by this shooting, as well as to the Kazmierczak family. The losses this day are unfathomable and life-changing.
It’s happened again, this time at Northern Illinois University (NIU). Once again a gunman, one Steven Kazmierczak of Lakeland, Florida, has opened fire on a group of innocent college students, this time killing six. Quite frankly – please forgive me for seeming crass – I’m not the least bit surprised.
NIU is, like all college campuses in America, a gun-free zone. College administrators and faculty nationwide contend that there is no place on campus for a firearm because it quells the "free and open discussion" of the classroom and is "unsafe". How safe was it for the six dead and fifteen wounded?
If we’d learned anything at all from every mass shooting in this country it should be that gun-free zones are synonymous with killing-free zones. Did Kazmierczak walk into a gun range and open fire? Did he walk into a police station or bar? How about breaking into someone’s home – did he do that? No; Kazmierczak loaded a shotgun and two handguns and opened fire on a known group of disarmed innocents, fully aware that he was the only one with a firearm from the lecture hall to the edge of campus. The only way he could be shot is if he did it himself, which is exactly what the coward did. Sure, campus security was armed but what for good since they were not in the lecture hall and wouldn’t arrive in time to stop him?
As this situation unfolded at NIU, students texted warnings to each other that there was a gunman on the loose. It took twenty minutes for the campus to issue its own warning and lockdown. Sure, twenty minutes at NIU is two-thirds better than the hour it took Virginia Tech to respond; how many more could have been injured or died in that twenty minutes? How long after that before the ATF and FBI responded? How about the local cops? Where was campus security?
These questions are not a slam on those agencies, agents, or their honorable professions; rather it serves to contrast the lie that’s been fed to every parent and student. We’ve been told the college campus is one of the safest places in the country because there are no guns except those provided to the 'highly trained' security detail. The lie is unraveling with every single campus shooting; gun-free zones, such as NIU and Virginia Tech, are nothing more killing-free zones; our children are not safe because they are disarmed. And outlaws like Kazmierczak know it.
An armed response is only effective if it’s on scene. Arming a security detail and spreading them out across the campus is ineffective at least and at worst is falsely secure. Sure, a security guard could have done much to save lives and prevent further injuries – but where were they? Security details can only do so much and cover so much ground. There was no laziness or laxness from campus security; it’s a simple fact they cannot be everywhere at once. This is why it is imperative that the students and faculty – who are pretty much everywhere at once – be allowed to carry concealed on campus. The right to self-defense should not stop at the campus gates.
Remember Jeanne Assam in Denver, Colorado, the shooting in Pearl, Mississippi or in Grundy, Virginia where there was an armed response from a lawful citizen? You may not remember them because they didn’t make the news with as much pomp and repetition as does a "rampage". Look up the facts for each of those – legal firearms were rightly used to save lives. Those situations would have been much worse had brave citizens who chose to take the defense of self and others personally not stood against those gunmen. Similarly, NIU, Virginia Tech and all the rest could have been much, much different had there been legally armed citizens in the lecture hall.
Still the left and other fearful will sit back and cluck their tongues that guns are so readily available and easily obtained, lamenting how this tragedy would never have occurred had there not been so many (fearful tones here) guns in this country. I have a thought for those folk; take a Malox. This tragedy and all the others have nothing to do with the availability of guns in our country. In gun-free countries (United Kingdom and Australia to name a couple) outlaws are still quite heavily armed. They are so well heeled in fact that the United Kingdom is now spending more money arming its police than ever before (try not to think about how this also makes the lawful "citizen" even more powerless). The national gun resistry database in Canada cost over sixteen times what the politicians promised "citizens" ($119 million v. over $2 billion) and still, thugs, gangs, and outlaws are as heeled as American thugs, gangs, and outlaws; the difference is in Canada, lawfull citizens are disarmed and defenseless. The facts show taking guns away from lawful citizens does not reduce crime.
We, and the world, haven’t learned anything from history. There are dozens of examples of tyranny in the world that started with gun-free countries (Nazi Germany and Communist Russia to name but two; see Firearms in America; Right of the People for a more in-depth discussion) so let me discuss a different example, one that might be less offensive to those not willing to rationally discuss gun-freedom; Prohibition.
In 1919 the U.S. ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to its Constitution prohibiting "intoxicating liquors" (and began enforcement in 1920). Prohibition showed us that these sorts of laws are not about controlling a substance or item, such as alcohol; it is about controlling people. Instead of enforcing the laws designed to discourage public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated, politicians and the ruling class banned alcohol. Who did this Amendment really punish, the lawless and drunkards, or the law-abiding citizen having a nightcap at home? Did Prohibition actually curtail consumption of alcoholic beverages or did it enrich the outlaws who produced it, shipped it, and sold it? History provides clear answers; the only thing Prohibition did was further reduce the liberty of law abiding citizens and multiply the power of organized crime to a point which was almost uncontainable. The federal government in collusion with the several states did nothing with Prohibition but punish the citizen and empower the scofflaw. It is the same thing with guns.
On a grander scale, think for a moment about the repercussions of a gun-free America. One wouldn’t have much to think because there are innumerable examples of abuse, harassment, and liberty-infringement world-wide; one only need look in those ‘gun-free’ countries to find it. The college campus and other gun-free zones are microcosms of how it would be nationwide – only the tyrannical would be armed and everyone else a target.
The saddest lesson from today remains that this could have been avoided and Kazmierczak could have been stopped as soon as he fired the first round had there been a student or faculty member in that lecture hall with a concealed firearm. Until we allow students and faculty to carry concealed on campus we should expect these sorts of tragedies to continue.
And they will.