Popular Vigilance

Event: Democratic Debates at DrexelTaking a look around campus on the night of the debates, it looked like a three-ring circus. Instead of the normal flow of students, there were news vans, reporters, supporters, and protestors galore. There were so many people buzzing around. It was the center of attention that night and it brought students over like moths to a flame. In this sea of people, imagine what would have happened if someone brought a gun, and intended to make use of the event to kill as many people as they could.Now generally, the more people have access to something, the harder that it is to secure. For example, a small gathering of people in a private location is pretty easy to keep safe and secure. An event with participants and spectators numbering in the thousands in a location just about anyone can get close to, well; there are just too many factors for it to be 100% safe. However, nothing in our lives is 100% safe. We all know that we can make a wrong step on the curve and fall face-first onto skull-cracking concrete. Automobile accidents happen all the time, Mother Nature is unforgiving, and you could even be one of the three thousand adults that die from choking each year. Most of us go on with our lives without putting too much thought into all of the possible ways we can die. Most of us also don’t ask for laws requiring automobiles to be made out of Nerf, every single object to be completely weatherproof, and for every person to chew their food at least twenty times before swallowed. Then again we also don’t allow cars that randomly explode or houses that disintegrate when a drop of rain hits them. We ask for things to be reasonably designed, created, and managed. So, this all begs the question: what is reasonable? In the country that we live in now, the United States of America, we make products, rules, and procedures in accordance with the law. If you disagree with a law, you can start a movement to change it, and if your argument is strong enough and your movement successful enough, you may just be able to change the law. Until that time though we must all obey the laws currently instated. No other agency should be able to do anything that violates these laws. This is why I could never understand how “Gun-Free Zones” could ever be legal. The second amendment, one of the oldest laws we have and follow, gives citizens the right to bear firearms. Today’s laws incorporate procedures like background-checks and other things to make sure that a citizen is capable and responsible of owning and using a firearm. These are the laws that the government passed, and these are the laws everyone has to obey. If the law says that you may carry a gun, and a different institution says that you may not, it is the law that should be upheld. How can you be penalized for following the law? Well unfortunately people do get into trouble for following the law. Schools and universities across several states have set up rules that state no one can carry a firearm. This idea has good intentions, and while at first this may seem like an appropriate way to stem violence related to gun-crime, it really makes all violence, not just gun-related violence, easier to commit. When you post a sign that says “Gun-Free Zone,” you are posting a sign that says “No one here has firearm.” Both of those phrases say the exact same thing, but when you compare them you realize that “Gun-Free Zone” is a very over-advertised euphemism. So let’s analyze where criminals would logically want to commit a crime. Let’s start off with the theory that “most criminals would rather not be injured or killed.” Now, there are fundamentalists out there, especially the religious kind. Recent events have shown us that some individuals are so strongly committed to something that they would sacrifice their own lives for that cause. So, let’s change the theory to suit the facts: “Most criminals would rather not be hurt or killed. For those that do not fear death and/or expect death, they want to do as much damage and to progress their goals as far as they can before they die. No criminal wants to be stopped before they have accomplished what they plan to do.” Looking at this theory I see no gaping flaws or holes in it that would make most people say that it is a bad theory. Remember, we are a democracy, so we care about most people, not all people. Now, using this theory as a guide, we can say that criminals would want to commit crimes in places where they will not be hurt, killed, or stopped. It seems like these “Gun-Free Zones” match up with this perfectly. By not allowing law-abiding citizens (that were deemed capable of using a firearm by the law) to have a gun, you are telling people that you are safe to do your criminal acts here. Imagine if a sign on a company said “243 of the 250 employees here have firearms. Feeling lucky enough to guess who the 7 are that don’t?” Are the chances going to be high that someone is going to attempt an armed robbery at that company? I personally do not believe so. When looking at the Virginia Tech. shootings that happened not too long ago, what do you think would have happened if some of the students or if some of the teachers had a gun? Do you think that the shooting spree would have lasted nearly as long as it did? Do you think it would have ended with a suicide?I think most of us can generally agree that the “Founding Fathers” of the U.S.A had some good ideas. They used these ideas to create a stable, democratic government that has flourished for over two hundred years. So it is not too difficult to understand why we place the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights in such high positions. They were good for the people, and they were good for the government that was created of the people, by the people, and for the people. So whenever you have doubts about the Bill of Rights, and about the right to bear arms, remember this little quote by Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."