I have a question.
If 20% of the adults in that Colorado theater had been armed with a handgun and trained in its use, how many people would have died in addition to the shooter?
I think the answer is clear: fewer.
The reason why so many died is that 99% of the people in that theater were unarmed. There was only one exception.
I offer a proposition:
“Armed and dangerous” is an inescapable concept. There is no such thing as “unarmed and safe.” There is only the question of which person or group is armed and dangerous.
It would have been far better if 100% of the adults in that theater had been armed and trained. But we must be reasonable in our assumptions. We cannot expect 100% of any large group to get trained in the use of a handgun. But 20% is reasonable.
The reason why we do not have 20% of our population armed and trained is because the culture of gun control is dominant. There is a stigma for people to carry a weapon. It begins early.
This stigma begins in tax-supported schools. It begins in an environment in which unarmed people are forced into a government-controlled environment for 8 hours a day.
Within a few years, students learn that bullies get their way, that bullies are not expelled, that the system favors bullies. The victims learn that nothing can protect them. They learn that self-defense is regarded as a violation of the law, that self-defense is regarded as immoral and uncharitable. The student who fights back is as likely to be punished as the bully.
The system therefore favors bullies. The victims learn that bullies run the show, despite bureaucrats who promise justice on campus. Bullies know how to work the government’s system of sanctions. They have nothing to lose. The victims — the productive members of the school system — have a lot to lose. They learn meekness. They learn submission.
This is what tax-funded education is designed to produce: a mentality of submission.
This is high school in Back to the Future. This is music to the ears of the Biffs of this world.
At graduation, the victims take the culture of disarmament with them. So do the bullies, who know that their victims are now psychologically trained not to fight back.
The victims place their hope in this: the randomness of bullies in the general population. “The other guy will be a victim. I will escape.”
Inner-city males know better, which is why they are more likely to carry guns than males in the suburbs. But no one trains them in the use of these guns. The police pretend, as teachers pretended, that bullies are under control.
A handgun in your holster makes a statement: “The police cannot protect us. The state cannot protect us.” This is correctly regarded as an insult to the bureaucrats who run the state — an assertion of their failure to protect law-abiding citizens. Hence, bureaucrats favor gun control. Gun control does not protect the population, nor is it intended to. What gun control does is simple: it does keep the evidence of the state’s failure from becoming widespread. It keeps voters disarmed and dependent on the state.
Bottom line: it keeps adults in “school” until the day they die.
A dozen if them died in that theater. That is the price they paid for the culture of disarmament.
This is the state’s position: “Better a dozen dead people in a theater than an armed population.”
To read the rest of my article, click the link. It gets meaner.