Just days ago, according to reports, a gunman walked onto the campus of Oregon Community College and open fired. I'm sure most of us have read the story. According to an article on Washington Post, the gunman open-fired, then singled out Christians and shot them in the head. The story is tragic.
I can't imagine what these students have gone through and what their families must be going through now. My heart goes out to these families and students, and as I read the details of this horrible event, my heart breaks for them.
One of the biggest reactions to this devastating crime has been resumed focus on what is arguably one of the most pressing, reoccurring issues we have today: Gun control.
Many look at unspeakable acts of violence, like the Oregon shooting, and feel like the best solution to the problem is to take away the guns. No guns, means no problems. First, let me say that I can see why some may feel like more restrictive gun laws would prevent such horrible crimes.
Every crime is different, so every crime story is different. But with most crime reports, what is so often the common thread that links each story? The link, in so many cases, is the word "gun." Guns have become scary to so many people because, from all appearances, "guns kill people."
Let me continue by explaining the opposite point of view. Guns are not bad. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Think about it, a gun is simply a lifeless object. It does not breath or think and is not capable of moving or acting on its own. It takes a gun handler to make the gun shoot.
This being said, one could argue that if you take away the guns, you take away the ability for people to use them to kill. Let me ask you this: Who exactly is it that uses guns to kill people? Criminals--criminals use guns for evil purposes. Criminals do not live under the authority of the law, but rather they make their own rules and do what they want, whether the law permits them to or not. Stricter gun control does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals; it keeps guns out of the hands of innocent bystanders and vulnerable civilians.
A criminal will always find a way to get what they want. Don't believe me? Just look at areas with drug problems, for example. When guns are restricted we are not hindering a criminal's malicious intent, we are preventing innocent civilians from protecting themselves and their families.
In the article I read on the shooting at Oregon Community College, I realized just why this campus may have been the target. The on-campus security does not even cary a gun -- the campus is a gun-free zone. I can't help but wonder if things might have turned out a little differently had there been trained gun handlers on-campus.
In a world where the good guys have no guns, the bad guys have free rein and full control. When a man walks into a room full of people and starts shooting, the most likely way to stop him is with another gun. In a hypothetical situation, if the people in the room are unarmed, they are completely helpless in the situation. The shooter empties his gun and is able to kill 10 people before authorities are even able to arrive at the scene to stop him.
Take that same hypothetical situation, except in that room full of people, there is one person who is licensed to carry a gun. That one person is able to unholster his gun and take out the assailant before many people get hurt. That one man just saved dozens of lives.
These two situations have two very different outcomes. The difference is the person(s) wielding the gun.
Now compare a college which allows students, or at the very least faculty, staff, and security, to conceal-carry, with a college which does not even allow security to carry a gun. Which college do you think a shooter would pick as his target? The one where there are countless people with the ability to fire back at him or the one where there will be no one to shoot back at him?
Criminals are less likely to commit a crime in an area in which they think they are likely to face opposition.
We can say that, by taking away the gun, you fix the problem. But even if outlawing guns would prevent criminals from using them, they would find other weapons. What would we outlaw next? Kitchen knives? Hammers? Baseball bats? Crowbars? Each of these items has been used to cause just as much damage as a gun; just usually on a smaller scale than a campus shooting.
If the argument is that guns should be taken away because criminals use guns to kill other people, then I could argue that cars should be taken away because reckless drivers kill people with their car. Are we going to create laws restricting or banning car use, just because people lose their lives in car wrecks? No.
The problem is not the instrument used to kill, the problem is the person controlling the weapon. We cannot prevent shooting crimes by taking away guns anymore than taking away cars is a feasible solution to reckless drivers and car-related deaths.
Taking away guns creates a larger pool of helpless victims and empowers criminals. Only by allowing the "good guys" to carry guns can we start to thwart and maybe even prevent such tragedies like the Oregon shooting. Guns are not the problem, they are actually the solution.
