Opposition to gun (carry) bill is not based on logic
Date: Jul 8, 2007 8:45 PM
Gun control is not based on logic. The proponents of
gun control depend upon emotion as their main asset.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070708/NEWS/707080324/-1/LIFE

Opposition to gun bill is not based on logic

Published July 8, 2007There appears to be a growing trend of misinformation surrounding the facts and merits of the S.C. House’s concealed carry bill picking up more media attention.

The measure, which would legalize concealed weapons on public school grounds for permit holders, has gained strong support from many students and those in the House, with most opposition coming from school administrators and police officials. In order to ensure that debate on this topic is not done with false information, a few things need to be clarified.

Many opponents of the bill call this a “knee-jerk reaction” to the shootings at Virginia Tech. This isn’t true. In fact, the bill’s idea originally was presented to Rep. Michael Pitts in September 2006 after shootings in Vermont and Canada – two of six school shootings within six consecutive months. The bill – the brainchild of a student, not a state legislator – simply found new attention after the Virginia Tech shootings.

Secondly, many opponents don’t recognize that crime with concealed carry permits is largely nonexistent. The recent killings by a man in Beaufort with a concealed carry permit is the first instance of such a crime since SLED began issuing concealed weapons permits more than a decade ago. In terms of statistical analysis, concealed weapon crime is statistically irrelevant.

But opponents to this bill wouldn’t want to realize this. In fact, the argument they set up against this bill is the real “knee-jerk reaction” based upon emotion rather than logic or factual data. The truth is that very few people on campus would qualify to carry a gun onto campus – those 21 and up (mostly seniors and some juniors) and those who complete a concealed carry course. Those who pass this course qualify with training and a shooting test and have been proven to be trustful citizens.

While those responsible for security on campuses have some authority behind their opinions, just because they are police officials does not necessarily mean their opinions are right. The Virginia Legislature considered a similar bill in January 2006 and struck it down. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions,” said Larry Hincker, Virginia Tech’s spokesperson. “This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” A little more than one year later, a school shooter took the lives of 32 students on that campus.

Clemson University Police Chief Johnson Link said in a safety meeting that the police department does not have the manpower to secure the entire campus. Yet, Link is one of the leading critics of the bill. In doing so, Link, as well as other opponents, have essentially said that although his department does not have the ability to protect students, students should also not have the ability to protect themselves.

Police have never once stopped a school shooting after it has started. This is fact. What is also fact is that the only school shooters who have been subdued were subdued by students or civilians using personal firearms retrieved from their vehicles.

When will we realize that police are ineffective at protecting our students, and when will we give the constitutional right to bear arms and protect oneself back to the people who need it most?

Andrew Davis of Surfside Beach is a recent graduate of Clemson University, where he served as chairman of Clemson Conservatives

FAIR USE _ FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !