…this man should have:
a) been overrun by his attacker, who would have taken the gun and shot him with it; OR
b) been arrested for gun violence.
Well, according to me, he should be hailed as a hero.
By: Nathan D. Fox
Read this brief article about another Virginia school shooting by a foreign national student at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002. This was one of the incidents that lead up to Virginia’s ban on guns anywhere on college campuses. However, while the storylines are somewhat parallel, their resolutions are markedly different.
At Appalachian, two students acting independently of one another, reached for their own weapons upon hearing shots in an administrative building. Unfortunately, the facts surrounding the apprehension of the shooter were unreported by many news outlets according to World Net Daily. At Appalachian, both Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross ran to their vehicles and retrieved their legally obtained, permitted, handguns to apprehend the shooter. After succeeding in apprehending the shooter and disarming him, the shooter was then detained by several unarmed students until authorities arrived. However, this incident was not without tragedy as 3 people were killed before the shooter was detained. Fortunately, it was only 3 individuals.
What is the relevance you ask? This is an example of why law abiding citizens should be allowed to arm themselves. This is not a cheap political rant or NRA talking point. This is a plain and simple justice argument. Why should law abiding citizens be forced to endure their own slaughter without a means of recourse? (a recourse which coincidentally is preserved in our Constitution…see Amendment numero dos for those inclined to habla Español)
A second problem I have with the VA Tech shooting is that the PC plan of non-resistance worked to its worst end. The students, who sadly have been trained to seek cover and hide, were sitting ducks waiting for their demented executioner. This literally makes me irate. I recall in elementary school how our teachers taught us to handle this type of situation: sit and wait with the lights off and the door closed. Does this make any sense? This is the logical equivalent of a child who says, “if I close my eyes I can’t see you, so you can’t see me.” I am about to say something unpopular and possibly offensive, so buyer beware.
The PC liberal-left has succeeded in undermining a key vertebrae in our American backbone of liberty over death. Somehow in our comfy suburbanite desire for safety over all, we have taught our children that it is better to sit an let evil run rampant, hoping it will pass, than fight evil, and confront it (violently if necessary). This is an outrage. To my knowledge, there was one 76 year old man, Liviu Librescu, who fought back at VA Tech and sacrificed his own life so that others should live. May God rest this man’s honorable soul. Mr. Librescu, unfortunately, knew a thing or two about evil. He was a Holocaust survivor and probably had a sound knowledge of the reality of human evil. However, the liberal left would have you believe that the best course of action is to sit on your hands and sing “Cumby-a.” This does not work as evidenced most recently, and sadly, at VA Tech. Wouldn’t it be easier to confront evil if law abiding citizens were allowed to have the tools to get the job done? Regardless, individual action is sometimes the best means to solve a problem. For example, if Todd Beamer (“Let’s Roll,” 9/11/01) chose to sit on his thumbs on his ill-fated flight over PA, there may have been a helluva lot more casualties on 9/11. The liberal left will never admit this though.
If you really want crime control, and an end to unlawful violence, arm your law abiding citizens. You will hear the liberals out there begrudging America’s “gun culture,” and other things in attempt to blame America for Cho’s outrageous conduct at VA Tech. However, the truth is it is their liberal ideology and acceptance of Cho’s hatred, and the gun-free school zone that allowed this tragedy to happen on the scale that it did. If parents and students really want safe schools, it is high time, regardless of views of gun control, that parents demand a change. Unfortunately there are 32 more victims of the sit-and-hide-under-your-desk policy. Our will to fight back is broken, who will fix it?
As requested by an email from a reader, I am posting to explain what a “Castle Doctrine” law is.
The Castle Doctrine is a rule that provides that one does not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.
Lets back up.
Most states require that when one is attacked, one make a reasonable effort to retreat safely, and that only when retreating would not be safe, one can use deadly force to defend themselves. This rule also applies to use of force in defense of another. The law allows you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and defend them if it is reasonable to do so. This rule varies state by state, and the presumptions for what is reasonable are different.
The Castle Doctrine is an exception to that rule. The name derives from the adage that “a man’s home is his castle.” Because of this adage, a person is always presumed to be justified in using deadly force against an intruder in his own home or business, if that intruder is in the premises unlawfully. Again, this rule varies state by state, but that’s the gist of it.
The debate currently ongoing, and sponsored by the NRA and several victims organizations involves the expansion of the castle doctrine, to allow a person to use reasonable force in self defense in any place where that person is legally allowed to be.
For a more detailed analysis, see Wikipedia. The NRA-ILA provides this analysis of Florida’s Castle Doctrine.
I am a cautious supporter of this rule, but more on that later.
