The question seems to come up a lot.
Every time some lunatic walks into a “gun free zone” with a gun to kill a bunch of people so he can finally get the attention he deserves from the LA Times, or because he’s pissed with his (imagined) girlfriend, or because the meds the judge mandated make him lose all sense of proportion, or just because the voices tell him to – every time – we gun owners who didn’t do it brace for the inevitable racket about how we’re to blame for clinging to our perverted phallic symbols and that just proves we love gun violence.
Which, for those of us who actually carry and use guns for protection, is an inversion of the truth. We don’t carry guns because we love violence. We carry guns because we don’t.
Here’s an article about a young man, a survivor of the Thousand Oaks bar shooting, who has lost his last chance to be interviewed on CNN or MSNBC because he lived through the experience but drew all the “wrong” conclusions…
I believe this area was a gun free zone, and although there was security, I don’t believe any were armed. I do know that one security officer was killed right when the shooting started.
If just one person was armed, there is a possibility that it could have been stopped then and there. This is why gun free zones are a danger to us all, and if someone had been there armed, those people would still be alive.
By coincidence I was re-reading a classic old Marko Kloos post just last night that summarizes this business far better than I can before my second cup…
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.