Spring Break
Citizens left defenseless with strict gun control laws
Issue date: 4/18/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Editor,
I'm sure Virginia Tech has a no-weapons policy, similar to UNM and every other campus in the U.S. Didn't this gunman know he couldn't have a firearm on campus? Didn't he read his student handbook? Obviously, he didn't. The point I am trying to address is that policies, signs, student handbooks and contracts don't prevent people from coming on campus with a gun - or anywhere, for that matter. They only provide people with a false sense of security.
It has already been established by the Supreme Court in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police have no obligation to protect the individual. So where does that leave us? The only person responsible for your safety is you. Yes, you. How much will happen between the time you call 911 and the response? It seems in the case of Virginia Tech, long enough for 33 people to die, not to mention the numerous wounded.
One might say incidents like these are a case for more gun control. I disagree. It's a fallacy that will have only dire consequences for the individual. Numerous studies have shown gun control has no effect on crime. On the flip side, the lack of gun control has no effect on crime. But by providing citizens with the ability to arm themselves, it guarantees the safety of the individual. It is that point that seems to be lost on gun-grabbers.
If residents of Albuquerque recall, a couple years ago, an individual who had a concealed carry permit was able to save an innocent woman from a domestic violence incident at a local Wal-Mart. That individual's quick reaction saved the lives of not only the woman, but also numerous patrons of the store.
Criminals will always have guns, and gun control leaves only the honest citizen defenseless. Thankfully, it seems more states are recognizing the people's right to defend themselves. More states are becoming like New Mexico, and only two states - Wisconsin and Illinois - don't issue permits to carry pistols at all. Castle-doctrine and stand-your-ground laws are also becoming more common.
So, while more states are finally giving the people the ability to defend themselves, companies and universities like UNM take them away. Company and university policies disarm individuals, denying them the ability to defend themselves. Signs, student handbooks and contracts do not prevent criminals from coming in with a gun and shooting random people. Meanwhile, those who follow the rules are the ones who get killed.
The police are obviously lost. So, who's to blame? The answer: universities that deny their students and employees the ability to defend themselves. I can only hope that one day, these businesses and universities will be served justice by being sued for violating civil rights and denying people the ability to protect themselves.
Daniel S. Martinez
UNM student
I'm sure Virginia Tech has a no-weapons policy, similar to UNM and every other campus in the U.S. Didn't this gunman know he couldn't have a firearm on campus? Didn't he read his student handbook? Obviously, he didn't. The point I am trying to address is that policies, signs, student handbooks and contracts don't prevent people from coming on campus with a gun - or anywhere, for that matter. They only provide people with a false sense of security.
It has already been established by the Supreme Court in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police have no obligation to protect the individual. So where does that leave us? The only person responsible for your safety is you. Yes, you. How much will happen between the time you call 911 and the response? It seems in the case of Virginia Tech, long enough for 33 people to die, not to mention the numerous wounded.
One might say incidents like these are a case for more gun control. I disagree. It's a fallacy that will have only dire consequences for the individual. Numerous studies have shown gun control has no effect on crime. On the flip side, the lack of gun control has no effect on crime. But by providing citizens with the ability to arm themselves, it guarantees the safety of the individual. It is that point that seems to be lost on gun-grabbers.
If residents of Albuquerque recall, a couple years ago, an individual who had a concealed carry permit was able to save an innocent woman from a domestic violence incident at a local Wal-Mart. That individual's quick reaction saved the lives of not only the woman, but also numerous patrons of the store.
Criminals will always have guns, and gun control leaves only the honest citizen defenseless. Thankfully, it seems more states are recognizing the people's right to defend themselves. More states are becoming like New Mexico, and only two states - Wisconsin and Illinois - don't issue permits to carry pistols at all. Castle-doctrine and stand-your-ground laws are also becoming more common.
So, while more states are finally giving the people the ability to defend themselves, companies and universities like UNM take them away. Company and university policies disarm individuals, denying them the ability to defend themselves. Signs, student handbooks and contracts do not prevent criminals from coming in with a gun and shooting random people. Meanwhile, those who follow the rules are the ones who get killed.
The police are obviously lost. So, who's to blame? The answer: universities that deny their students and employees the ability to defend themselves. I can only hope that one day, these businesses and universities will be served justice by being sued for violating civil rights and denying people the ability to protect themselves.
Daniel S. Martinez
UNM student
Anonymous posts are no longer allowed. They will not show up.
You must be logged in to post!
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 16
scottyt27
Scott
posted 4/18/07 @ 8:19 AM MST
Que Pendejo! Virginia has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation. Where do you think New Yorkers go to get their handguns? This was just a tragedy that I wish never happened, but I don't think it had anything to do with gun control laws. (Continued…)
Daniel S. Martinez
posted 4/18/07 @ 8:51 AM MST
Scott-
You are not getting the point I am trying to address. I realize Virginia and 47 other states allow people to protect themselves. While "New Yorkers" may indeed travel to Virginia to purchase their handguns and thus the label of "leniency" could be argued. (Continued…)
Helmut Steele
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:15 AM MST
I agree completely with Daniel Martinez. Almost completely, anyway. Like, he doesn't go far enough. Carrying a gun, ESPECIALLY on campus, should be MANDATORY. (Continued…)
Marshall Dillon
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:25 AM MST
I think that the bookstore should sell Lobo jackets with built in explosive belts, and the parking and transportation services people should set aside a parking area for car bombs. (Continued…)
Guns Are the Answer for Every Problem
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:26 AM MST
More guns will solve the world?s ills. The US should embark on a policy were we manufacture 6 billion guns and give one to every man woman and child on this earth so they can protect themselves. (Continued…)
Marisol Garcia-Thomas
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:29 AM MST
Mr. Steele, you are a realy sik puppy, you know that? You should either turn yourself in for counciling or join Air Force R.O.T.C.
Wes Addison
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:35 AM MST
If the 2d Amendment is so cool, how come Iran and North Korea can't have their own nukes?
Daniel
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:51 AM MST
It appears a few of my repliers have issues. FOrtunetly I am a Business major rather than a Pyschology major.
Anyways, I am getting the assumption that people think if we removed the restrictions allowed on concealed carry. (Continued…)
David Pankey
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:55 AM MST
Mr. Scott, you wrote "Que Pendejo!". Pardon me, but I think that you must have meant "Que Pendejada!". 'Que Pendejo' would seem to imply that you meant that Daniel Martinez is a pendejo -- which he is not (we share a class). (Continued…)
Brian Fejer
posted 4/18/07 @ 10:59 AM MST
The Police won't protect you. Only YOU can protect YOU!
Post a Comment