We know now from bitter experience that the killers plan these assaults carefully, choosing their weapons, selecting their venues — in Colorado, the shooter deliberately selected a “gun-free” theater, even though there were theaters closer to him showing the same Batman movie. But, as military folks know, no plan survives contact with an armed enemy. Because, in the end, most of the shooters are cowards, hopped up on violent role-playing games, whacked out on psychotropic drugs, or just plain nuts. It’s no accident so many of them are young men, life’s losers, caught up in hormonal rages and frustrations, and unable to think past the next sunrise, who live in the moment — and die in the moment, taking as many people with them as they can.
Since the Virginia Tech massacre, there’s been a small trend away from “gun-free” campus zones and toward allowing responsible, licensed concealed-carry permit holders to bring their guns to school. Naturally, the Left immediately envisions running gun battles through the halls of academe, but then they had the same wrong-headed reaction when, in the aftermath of 9/11, pilots were permitted to carry guns in the cockpit. Until the current spate of school shootings runs its course — and they will end only when the prospective victims start shooting back — armed educators and administrators might not be a bad idea; or, indeed, armed civilians in general. As John Lott has argued, more guns, less crime.
Police chiefs and other political animals are against it, naturally, since they want a monopoly on the use of force, but beat cops and homicide detectives love the idea; they’re in the game for justice, not bureaucratic advancement, and in candid moments they’ll tell you they like nothing better than to respond to a shooting call to find a perp stretched out on the floor and a righteous homeowner standing over the corpse with a smoking shotgun. Some muss, less fuss.
For just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, neither is there an obligation in the civil society to go meekly to one’s death at the state’s behest, or to satisfy its lust for absolute control over its citizens. Recent court rulings have been running heavily in favor of the plain language of the Second Amendment, and rightly so. What part of the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is unclear?
Because, in the end, the alternative is too terrible to contemplate. Just ask someone who knows: