Tag: gun control

Categories
Second Amendment rights

Let Teachers Bear Arms

We have no sure way to prevent such horrors as the recent shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. We can’t predict which very few of the very many persons with grievances will choose to vent their rage by loosing a hail of bullets at innocents. And schools would be unable to function if they were so locked down as to eliminate the possibility of a gunman walking through the door.

We can, however, take measures to reduce the likelihood and severity of such an attack. We can also prepare to defend ourselves if the worst happens. When someone is shooting at you and the students in your care, the best chance of stopping the shooter within seconds — when the police are minutes away, at best — is to shoot back. The more persons able to shoot back, the better.

It makes sense for appropriately trained teachers and other school personnel to be armed and ready to confront an assailant. This isn’t just a theoretical proposal. In 2008, the Harrold school district in Northwest Texas introduced a “guardian plan” under which some teachers and other staffers carry concealed handguns. A few other school districts have followed suit. But the practice is far from common in Texas or in the nation at large.

Says Harrold’s superintendent, “Nothing is 100 percent. But what we do know is that we’ve done all we can to protect our children.”

The Harrold district’s provisions for self-​defense are controversial. They shouldn’t be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Second Amendment rights

A Terrible Accusation

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, much of the self-​righteously impassioned rhetoric about gun control carries an accusation: those who oppose further gun curbs are “allowing” children to be murdered.

Ridiculous.

None of the newly proposed gun and ammunition bans — all of them old proposals, of course — would, if put in place long ago, have prevented the atrocity in Connecticut.

A more cogent indictment spotlights supporters of gun control. For politicians who have long believed they can halt all acts of violence and save lives by outlawing this weapon or that or limiting ammo clips, what does it say that they did nothing?

“The first two years of the last Obama administration,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told NBC News, “Congress and the Senate and the White House were all in the hands of the Democrats and they did nothing.”

According to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Bloomberg’s “point is well taken.”

Connecticut Congressman John Larson argued that, “To do nothing in the face of pending disaster is to be complicit.”

President Obama first suggested that elected officials, afraid of the gun lobby, put their own positions ahead of the safety of six and seven year old children, stating, “[W]e’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

In short, even when politicians believe their gun grabbing will save lives, they won’t act to protect those lives if it might risk their political position. They act or fail to, not on principle, but on their own political benefit.

Stay tuned tomorrow for a rational, constitutional step toward reducing the risk of a future massacre.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Second Amendment rights too much government

Out of Control

Economist George Reisman, author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, supports strict gun control. So do I.

Not gun control directed against the weapons of peaceful gun owners. Gun control directed against armory-​facilitated violations of our rights by government and criminals.

In his essay “Gun Control: Controlling the Government’s Guns,” Reisman assures readers that he too believes in gun control. “However, I do so in the light of the knowledge that by far the largest number and the most powerful guns and other weapons are in the possession of the government.”

By its nature, everything the government does, good or bad, relies for its effectiveness on the threat of deadly force — otherwise people would be free to ignore its laws and rulings. Therefore, a meaningful program of gun control “must above all focus on strictly controlling and regulating the activities of the government.”

When government uses its powers against actual criminals — those who kill, rape, steal — this serves as a “control on the use of force, including the use of guns,” insofar as it deters such criminal acts of coercion.

The Constitution is a form of gun control directed against the government. To control the government’s use of force, such protections must be enforced and illegitimate uses of government power must be curtailed. Guns owned by a peaceful citizen are also a form of gun control — they can deter or counter wrongful acts of force by both private criminals and public officials.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

Swiss Gun Control

In mid-​February, Swiss voters rejected stricter gun controls.

No one knows how many guns the Swiss own. There’s no national registration system, yet the Swiss do not suffer a high crime rate, like America does.

But the country does have the highest gun suicide rate in Europe.

The stranger issue, though — and in contrast to most countries around the world — is the number of semi-​automatic rifles belonging to the army that soldiers and ex-​soldiers store at home. It’s part of the Swiss defense plan. The army can quickly rise up in case of an attack.

The gun control proposal would have required solders’ firearms to be locked up in armories. This, it was argued, was to help reduce suicide rates … though a few high-​profile shootings also gave impetus to the gun control measure. During the debate much was made of the country’s long history of firearm expertise and unique military heritage. 

The measure was defeated in 20 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, with over 56 percent of voters rejecting it, nationwide. 

Does the Swiss system seem strange?

It’s certainly different.

Switzerland still uses conscripts, while the U.S. rightly recruits an all-​volunteer military. But their method of decentralized governance, borrowed more than 150 years ago from us and today far more decentralized than ours, is wise not only for the firepower of national defense, but for more bang for the buck in all areas of government. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Second Amendment rights

The Idiotic Extremes of Prohibitionist Tyranny

Tyrants don’t like an armed populace. The extent tyrannies will go to make sure citizens are disarmed can boggle the mind. 

Take England. Please.

In Great Britain, private gun ownership is now illegal. This is not just a policy of trying to reduce concealed carrying of firearms — it’s a complete and utter prohibition, with no leniency.

Consider the recent case of 27-​year-​old Paul Clarke, a former soldier. He spied a garbage bag in the wrong place, went to look, and found a shotgun with ammo inside. He new guns were illegal, so he made an appointment with the local Chief Superintendent, and took it to the police station in the morning.

He was then arrested and imprisoned for possessing a firearm. He didn’t know that the law was so stringent as to make even touching a firearm, with the intention of giving it to the police, a no-​no. But he was prosecuted and convicted for doing just that. By the time you hear/​read this, he’ll have been sentenced.  I’m hoping the judge is lenient. The five years minimum, which is how the law reads, is idiotic in the extreme.

The law is more than just dumb, it’s tyrannical. There’s no excuse for such nonsense. 

Free Paul Clarke! And weep for Britain, where some say liberty was born. Liberty sure seems dead there now — as is common sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.