Been there, done that

Sammy DeMarco, a student at Eastern Michigan University, writes about his change of heart:

Concealed weapons should be allowed on campus. There, I said it. After years of believing weapons should not be allowed on university property, I have flipped my position. I can no longer find a valid reason as to why law-abiding citizens who attend and work at Eastern Michigan University or any university campus should be left defenseless.

I know where Sammy is coming from. I too flipped my position some years ago. I gave up on my ignorance and my emotion, and looked at logic. I was convinced by logic because well… some things are just hard to defend, once you take your fingers out of your ears.

The EMU Public Safety folks are some of the most professional authorities I’ve encountered. I have no doubt they are highly capable of handling a situation similar to what happened last week at Oikos. But we cannot expect police to be on every corner, in every parking lot and every classroom every minute….

Many students live off campus, have night classes and walk home. We regularly receive emails and texts alerting us that yet another classmate was robbed or assaulted while walking home.

So, not only are citizens not allowed to defend themselves while on campus, they are left defenseless going to and coming from the university, too.

We don’t deny that police and other people whose job it is to “bring safety” can do their job, but the reality is they can’t always be around to do their job. Look around right now… is there a police officer within arms reach of you? And is that police officer always there? If the fact we have police is sufficient to stop people from being assaulted or mugged, then why do we have so many assaults and muggings? Obviously having a police force is not sufficient to get the job done.

Consider where people live vs. where they work or go to school. Maybe we can have useful tools at our disposal at some time, but then due to certain laws we cannot. Why should law-abiding citizens have to reduce their ability to stay safe? Isn’t the general argument towards increasing safety? So how is telling that 5′ 4″ 105# woman she cannot have a gun to fend off a rapist or crazed ex- going to make her any safer? Restraining orders are just pieces of paper and really don’t stop people hell-bent on doing evil. So why should she have to choose between her personal safety and getting an education?

I realize many people will say we need stricter gun laws, not less strict, to deter crime. That logic goes something like this: We need to restrict law abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons. This in turn will reduce the crime that criminals commit on those very law abiding folks.

So, out of all the laws criminals break, we think the one law they will obey is not carrying a concealed weapon? I’m having trouble reaching that conclusion.

That’s pretty much the case. In fact, many criminals are repeat offenders. They’re already felons, legally prohibited from having a gun. Yet they do. The law hasn’t stopped them, it won’t stop them (it sure didn’t stop them from committing their original crimes), so the only people abridged and hurt by the law are the law-abiding good people. Why are we doing that? What logic is there, other than perhaps someone having an agenda… or just being ignorant.

Sammy sums it up:

Self defense should go beyond law; it’s a right by nature. Denying someone a right to defend themselves against his or her would-be attackers is immoral. The reasons opponents give for supporting restrictions is not supported by data. The restrictions criminalize the good guys and empowers the bad ones. Police cannot be everywhere at once. Ultimately, there is only one person truly responsible for your safety: you.

That’s the thing. When you look at straight data, it’s there. Oh some will say it’s all statistics that the NRA provided to help further their “bloodbath agenda”. But that’s the funny thing… when folks like Howard Nemerov study data exclusively from anti-gun or neutral sources and the factual data and interpretation of it supports that gun control doesn’t work, how can you continue to argue against the facts? unless you just like to argue or are unwilling to accept the logic, reason, and hard fact.

It took me years to arrive here, but here I stand. It’s time we’re allowed to defend ourselves with more than a pen and a sharp tongue.

Sammy, it took me years to arrive here as well, but here I stand and stand with you. Don’t give up your pen and sharp tongue tho… keep spreading the word.

Join the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.