So, what's wrong with that? I carry.
The real truth of the matter is, practically speaking, an incident like this cannot be avoided. This was pure and simple an act of random terrorism by a suicide shooter. This guy could have struck anywhere— at a mall, a supermarket, a parking lot — just wherever , and caused dozens of casualties. What would be the defense against that ? Carry a loaded weapon every time you leave the house ? Its not practical, just as it is not practical to carry a gun to the classroom for that one in a million chance that some wacko will randomly gun down 30 people. A random act of terror by someone who is willing to die is near impossible to prevent. The alternative is for everyone to be armed and on the lookout all the time.
So, what's wrong with that? I carry.
Quite a number of people do just that.
........just as it is not practical to carry a gun to the classroom for that one in a million chance that some wacko will randomly gun down 30 people."
A good friend of mine worked at a major university. She carried EVERY DAY.
" A random act of terror by someone who is willing to die is near impossible to prevent. The alternative is for everyone to be armed and on the lookout all the time."
You obviously don't understand the concept of "deterrence". Criminals are deterred by the uncertainty that they will be able to carry out their crime(s). Allowing CCW increases that uncertainty, and thereby deters at least SOME of them. And "some" chance of self defense is infinitely better than NO chance of self defense.
Let those who decide to qualify for CCW carry anywhere they want to. Eliminate ALL "gun-free" zones. Gun owners with CCW have proven their reliability in multiple states over years of time.
“What would be the defense against that ? Carry a loaded weapon every time you leave the house ? Its not practical, “
Actually....it’s quite practical. S&W J-Frame fits quite comfortably in a pocket.
True, perhaps, but 20 years ago the suggestion you carry a phone everywhere you went would have been greeted with similar skepticism--in case your car broke down, you saw a fire, or an accident, or needed help, just to mention a few reasons. Now it is commonplace.
It is a matter of culture, habit, and percieved need.
While the odds are that you might never be confronted with a homicidal maniac, it is nearly a given that somewhere, someone will be.
Stopping them before they injure or kill anyone is unlikely, they have the element of surprise. Stopping them before they kill everyone available and thus reducing their impact is the realistic and attainable goal, but it will require a shift in the national 'percieved need'.
Coming on the heels of the '80s mentality of 'not getting involved' and 'leaving it to the professionals', that will be a long cultural climb, not to mention the lingering effects of the 'guns are eeevil' set.
I think the scramble to pass more gun control is on while the knees are still jerked, but common sense is beginning to prevail.
The attitude that I will not be any more inclined to misuse a concealed weapon because I cross a property line, a state line, or a municipal boundary is beginning to take hold.
The idea that the police will get there in time to take pictures and fill out paperwork and investigate events after the fact, while those on the scene at the time of the event are the ones who might prevail against an armed assailant, given the opportunity, ability, and equipment to do so is also taking hold.
I think there is a significant portion of our society who is sick of people being herded into corners like sheep, helpless, to be slaughtered. People want the ability to strike back, and hopefully that will prevail.
If we ever face armed jihad on our shores, like the party of surrender seems determined to have happen, we had better retain the right, ability, and practical capability to respond as individuals. If that means my wife, my high school age children, and even younger kids and grandkids learinig early to use and maintain a firearm, so be it. They'll adapt, which is better than waking up dead in the morning.
Good post, Part of the problem is people want life to be risk free. The outrage over shootings has to do with people feeling powerless. Politicians, though, think they have the power, by enacting more bans.