Det som hände i USA, massakern vid Virginia Tech, är så klart oerhört hemskt. Men eftersom så många i Sverige, Europa och vänstermedierna är så snabba på att fördöma rätten att bära vapen i USA, vill jag citera människor som ger en annan, i mitt tycke, mer rationell syn på saken.
We don’t need more shooting deaths. But neither do we need knee-jerk reactions to catastrophic events. A cool-headed look at the data shows why — data like those compiled by economist John Lott, who found that in states where right-to-carry laws are enacted, multiple-victim firearm attacks fall by 60%.
It’s not unusual for an American to defend himself or herself with a gun. According to at least one study, it happens successfully more than 2 million times a year.
But facts change nothing for culture warriors who equate guns with a lack of sophistication. They’re the ones who don’t get it. Shooting straight seems to be beyond their ability.
Yesterday morning, as news was breaking about the carnage at Virginia Tech, a reader e-mailed me a news story from last January. State legislators in Virginia had attempted to pass a bill that would have eased handgun restrictions on college campuses. Opposed by outspoken, anti-gun activists and Virginia Tech administrators, that bill failed.
Is it too early to ask: ”What if?” What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?
Longtime readers may recall the lead item in our Jan. 18, 2002, column, which concerned a shooting spree at another Virginia institution of higher learning, the Appalachian School of Law. The gunman, Peter Odighizuwa, killed three, and probably would have killed more but for another student’s gun:
Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said.
”We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter,” Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC’s ”Today” show. ”At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there.”
In America, where 33 states now permit law-abiding residents to carry concealed handguns for their own protection, the inverse relationship between gun crime and gun ownership is clear. Yale Law School scholar John Lott analyzed 18 years of crime data from all 3,054 US counties, and discovered that nothing was more decisive in lowering violent crime rates than the passage of ”shall-issue” or ”right-to-carry” gun laws. In the biggest counties, those with populations of 200,000 or more, concealed-carry laws led to an average drop in murder rates of more than 13 percent.
When the National Association of Chiefs of Police asked police commanders last year whether they agreed or disagreed ”that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime,” 62 percent agreed. When asked whether law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense, 93 percent said yes. Cops can confirm from experience what millions of Americans know by intuition: Guns make us safer. Now if only someone would tell The New York Times.
Hur kunde detta hända? Förklaringen är förstås inte vapen. Vapen dödar inte människor. Människor dödar människor. Dr Hurd har en tänkbar förklaring:
Dr. Michael Hurd posts: The Chicago Tribune reported on its website that he [the Virginia Tech killer, Mr. Cho] left a note in his dorm room that included a rambling list of grievances. Citing unidentified sources, the Tribune said he had recently shown troubling signs, including setting a fire in a dorm room and stalking some women.
ABC, citing law enforcement sources, reported that the note, several pages long, explains Cho’s actions and says, ”You caused me to do this.”
Assuming all of these facts are true, I see a connection between these two paragraphs. On the one hand, we have a young man who does outrageous things–set fire in a dorm room, stalking women–that in a more reasonable era would lead to immediate expulsion, if not legal prosecution. Since we’re not in a reasonable era, with all the fear of crazy lawsuits and political incorrectness (let’s not forget the ”rights” of the mentally ill, including the violent), then of course there are excuses made all the way up the chain of command at the university. Then, from the point of view of this sick and twisted, evil young man, when he sees excuses made for him, what happens, psychologically speaking? His sense of being a victim, the mentality of all criminals, is massively reinforced. When he finally decides to end it all, what does he do? Blame others. ”Others,” after all, were supposed to give him a life. Others are responsible for all of his pain. Others must pay.
Others in Mr. Cho’s life implicitly conceded this by not holding him accountable for his outrageous behaviors. When you appease a completely imbalanced, irrational person like this, he’s prone to take his premise of victimhood to its logical conclusion….and, well, you can witness, with horror, the results.