Re: Church shooting Charleston SC
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:52 am
We are on a forum created for the purpose of discussing concealed carry and related topics judging by its name alone. Given that this event happened in a de-facto gun-free (for law abiding citizens) zone, it seems natural and appropriate to comment on other potential results under other sets of rules. Further, it seems natural and appropriate that even an NRA Director and host of the site would comment on it. The nature of the comment that I've seen from long time members here did not seem to blame the victims for getting themselves killed. Rather, these comments point out that under different laws there might be other, perhaps less tragic, outcomes, and it is wrong to make any individual with the God-given right to defend themselves a defenseless victim by law.
Why do some people/groups seem to feel that they know what is best for everyone else to the point that they won't tolerate any other viewpoint? I/we advocate only that it is wrong to enact laws which inhibit any person's ability to protect ourselves against an attack with whatever tools we feel warranted to prevail over the attacker. Evil exists in this world and the threat of a violent attack can and does occur, often when least expected. We recognize this and hope that our choices will help us prevent harm to ourselves and others. That IN NO WAY equates to advocating for the ability to attack someone unprovoked, something good laws forbid. It also IN NO WAY means that we want every person armed -- there are indeed people whose actions prove them a risk to others whether armed or not, and there are plenty of good people who can and should be able to choose not to be armed.
Abhorrence of violence is a common thread wherever on the spectrum your political identity lies. Something Col. Jeff Cooper wrote resonates with me, as someone who is protective of the lives of myself and those I hold dear. It is, "If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear his victim."
Why do some people/groups seem to feel that they know what is best for everyone else to the point that they won't tolerate any other viewpoint? I/we advocate only that it is wrong to enact laws which inhibit any person's ability to protect ourselves against an attack with whatever tools we feel warranted to prevail over the attacker. Evil exists in this world and the threat of a violent attack can and does occur, often when least expected. We recognize this and hope that our choices will help us prevent harm to ourselves and others. That IN NO WAY equates to advocating for the ability to attack someone unprovoked, something good laws forbid. It also IN NO WAY means that we want every person armed -- there are indeed people whose actions prove them a risk to others whether armed or not, and there are plenty of good people who can and should be able to choose not to be armed.
Abhorrence of violence is a common thread wherever on the spectrum your political identity lies. Something Col. Jeff Cooper wrote resonates with me, as someone who is protective of the lives of myself and those I hold dear. It is, "If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear his victim."
