I am not particularly fond of participating in the “Gun debate” not for lack of passion but on the grounds of the almost insurmountable communication barrier. A barrier built of irrational fear (on both sides), failures of logic, and judgment clouded by emotion. Both sides are convinced those participants on the other side are either crazy or cowards to the point of excess, and communication has become nigh impossible. However, I found this comic and I thought it so clearly highlighted the ignorance of both debates I would throw in my two cents, for what it is worth.
The NRA gentlemen is talking about armed guards, the idea of this would be there are designated professionals who are there to protect us citizenry from those who would do us harm.
The gentleman with the newspaper is using a military base as an example of how guns can’t protect people. This is based on the flawed idea that every service member on these bases is armed. When in fact, there are more casually armed individuals walking around Wal-Mart than your average military base. Only MPs are allowed to carry, and only while on duty. Much like Campus police.
The flawed logic on both sides is ultimately a failure of thought that sweeps America as a culture. It is the failure to accept personal responsibility, and the willingness to have someone else solves our problems for us, while firmly believing that we are the only ones who could do it right.
The most extreme of those on the left, believe that widespread confiscation of guns would reduce gun violence, because we PUBLIC can’t be trusted and someone else should be responsible for our safety.
The most extreme on the right believe that every citizen should be armed at all times.
At least these are the perceptions perpetuated by the media. Which doesn’t help to bridge the communication gaps in this debate, but why would they MEDIA want to support the end of this debate, they make their money on the conflict.
What the 2nd Amendment, which is at the core of this debate offered, was every citizen the right to defend themselves from any threat. This is a right, I purposely stress that word, it means it is a choice, if a citizen does not want to carry–that is their choice. If they do, it is again their choice as well. But few talk about the responsibility associated with that right. Military personnel are rigorously trained on weapons safety, before they are trained on how to properly employ their weapon. Does this prevent all problems, no, but it reduces them. No solution is 100%. That is a fact of life. The CCW (Concealed Weapons Permit) programs are an excellent step in the right direction, they are optional and offer the average person a base of knowledge to make good decisions.
One other thing that CCW programs offer is the option of defense, in a concealed weapon state an attacker never knows who in the area may be armed. That question is a preventative measure. Everyone, regardless of their stability level conducts a cost/benefit analysis before they act. Will they choose to hold up a gun store or a liquor store? But again, no answer is 100% and there are always outliers.
There is a great power in the question of who may or may not be armed and that provides greater security than an armed guard. An armed guard is an advertised defensive position, they are a target. But an average citizen carrying concealed hides in plain sight. Schools, government buildings, and military bases don’t have that option.
What us advocates of the 2nd Amendment debate are asking for is the option to defend ourselves through the ability to carry. Just the option, let us decide where we can conceal carry. We don’t want armed guards. We understand that there is responsibility associated with that right. But by denying us that option, by pretending that outlier behavior is the norm the conversation only gets more convoluted.
What really needs to happen, is either the end of this conversation, just simply stop talking about it as if the guns are the problem, not the operators. Or establish what our goals are and establish rational policies to support those goals, ignoring outliers and focusing on the macro impacts of a simple logical policy.
