(via Hot Air) The Arizona Legislature is giving consideration to a proposal that would allow licensed concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns to K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.
I think the prospect of K-12 is a little shocking to some, but given that incidents do occur at high schools and the vast majority of high schoolers would be too young to qualify for a permit, it should definitely be considered.
There was more than two hours of testimony on the issue, but no vote was taken.
Supporters say the permit-holders should be allowed to carry guns at schools so they can defend themselves and others if a gunman starts shooting people and police haven’t yet arrived at the scene.
Opponents say police officers urgently responding to a school shooting might have difficulty distinguishing innocent permit-holders from the gunman.
I’m personally in favor of allowing people who have been deemed responsible enough by the state to carry their weapon with them almost anywhere. We know from the crime statistics that concealed carry permit holders are statistically shown to be more law abiding than the general population. There is no reason, especially given that concealed carry programs already exist in a wide variety of states, to believe that concealed carry license holders would somehow become more inherently irresponsible in a school setting. If anything, I would believe that they would be more cautious.
We also know that disturbed individuals who carry out the sort of murderous incidents that have spurred these hearings are often suicidal because they know the consequences for them should they be caught. So we have suicidal people rushing to do as much damage as possible and then ending things on their own terms.
Taking that into account, I think it is spurious to say that responsible concealed carry holders would make a situation measurably more dangerous for bystanders or themselves. The principle danger remains the individual who is intent on killing innocent people at random. There is no negative to having someone able to defend themselves, but the benefits are very substantive. It is possible that the person could save their own life, or those around them who are not armed and would otherwise make for easy targets for a determined murderer.
It is also somewhat irrelevant to deny permit holders the right to defend themselves over the hypothetical prospect of police confusion resulting in harm coming to an innocent party. Neither at Virginia Tech nor Northern Illinois University did the police engage the gunman. The response time simply isn’t there. It is the same principle as home defense. Yes, you can call 9/11 to summon the police, but they will never be there instantly, and it will often take too long for them to arrive on the scene. Having something to equal the playing field in the meantime can mean the difference between life and death.
Entries (RSS)