I own a number of Glocks. (I wouldn't say that publicly, except that the government already has ATF-required "yellow sheets" on them.) I like them all, but I adore my Glock 30 most of all. (That's the .45 caliber with a 10 round magazine.) It's the perfect handgun, as far as I'm concerned.
Hmmm... I need to get myself to the range sometime soon, now that I'm feeling better. Fun!
Just to be clear, I don't endorse Swiss-style mandatory military service. Nor do I believe that a proper government should require that citizens own firearms.
But I do admire a culture in which the citizens value their freedom highly enough that they are willing to defend it, with force if necessary. Any other approach makes one a ripe target for aggressors and tyrants. As the video notes, the logical end of such an unwillingness to defend one's freedom is the Holocaust.
The quiet, morally confident attitude towards armed self-defense expressed in the video by Mr. Heim used to also be fairly widespread amongst Americans, although it has declined in recent decades.
By Paul Hsieh @ 10:01 AM
At Central Connecticut State University, student John Wahlberg was reported to the police by his professor Paula Anderson, after he gave a presentation in class on campus violence in which he defended concealed carry.
After Wahlberg raised the point that allowing students with concealed weapons permits to carry on campus might have saved lives in incidents such as the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, Professor Anderson filed a complaint with the campus police against Wahlberg stating that his presentation was making students feel "scared and uncomfortable".
The police questioned Wahlberg about his own firearms and where he kept them:
"I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station," Wahlberg said, "but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices."
I guess Professor Anderson doesn't think that academic freedom extends to students arguing to exercise certain constitutionally-protected rights.
As another student noted:
"If you can't talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?" asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. "After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas."
Update: As others have noted here and elsewhere (e.g., Volokh and Instapundit), we may not have the full story. So appropriate caution is warranted before leaping to hasty conclusions.
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
British gun owners are finally starting to stand up for their rights, opposing the many years of failed government gun controls:
Will these protestors make a difference? Or is it "too little, too late"?
And will American gun owners learn the right lessons? Or will they become too complacent in the wake of the Heller Supreme Court decision?
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:37 AM This video by San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle provides an excellent demonstration of the difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic" firearms:
"The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms"
In particular, Officer Pyle does an excellent job of showing that two guns can have nearly identical inessential cosmetic features (such as the material the stock is made of), but differ in this one essential feature (semi-automatic vs. automatic), making them fundamentally different guns. Conversely, two guns can have the same essential features (i.e., both be semi-automatic), but one can be made to look very menacing and the other very innocuous simply by changing a few inessential cosmetic features.
In my experience, there are even some Objectivists who lack this basic understanding of the difference between automatic vs. semi-automatic weapons.
This is a nice real-life example of the importance of good epistemology, and in particular of defining by essentials. And we can see the dangers of failing to define by essentials when policy makers talk about banning "assault weapons", which is a bogus concept created grouping together firearms based on these inessential cosmetic features, rather than the essential ones.
Even now, there are some Republican Congressmen (not Democrats) who wish to reinstate the expired "Assault Weapons Ban" based on precisely this bogus concept. And given the incoming Obama Administration, this bill may become law.
As a corollary, this is also a concrete example of why a proper defense of one's political freedoms depends on upholding a proper rational epistemology -- and more generally a proper objective philosophy. Fortunately, that epistemology and that broader overall philosophy is already available to us -- we just have to be willing to use it.
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:02 AM
The August 15, 2008 Houston Chronicle has reported that one school district in North Texas will allow teachers who have concealed firearms licenses to carry their weapons on school property:
Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.
Superintendent David Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district's lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.
"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said...
A number of regular NoodleFood readers have left supportive comments on the newspaper website. From Kelly McNulty (who alerted us to this story):
This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Everyone has the right to defend their life, and in this situation, adults will be able to defend themselves and their students.
Someone commented earlier about being scared of "a bunch of kids." Scared of kids? Did you forget Bailey, Colorado less than two short years ago?
It doesn't matter where you are in society (work, school, home, the mall, etc.), you can be threatened with your life. If you are not prepared to save yourself, all you can do is hope that someone else will. (Good luck with that.) I was robbed in my own home (when I lived in Houston) and it's not fun to beg for your life. Now I own a handgun and I know how to use it. I just wish I would've had it then.
Unlike animals, humans are not naturally equipped to defend their lives. We have no claws, no sharp teeth, no tough, furry skin, etc. Man's only tool for survival is his mind. Guns were invented by the human mind as a tool to serve and protect us. You can pretend that evil doesn't exist or you can acknowledge it and prepare for the day it may come to you. Hopefully, it never will, but I'd rather be safe than dead.
From Nick Provenzo:
I absolutely support the right of a teacher to bear arms in defense of their and their student's lives, so I support this measure wholeheartedly and wish other jurisdictions would do the same.
I think it is appalling that anyone would demand that teachers be forced to be unarmed and left as the potential victims of any common thug. The lawful possession of firearms on campus is a sure deterrent against anyone who would seek to use savage violence in the schoolyard and I think it teaches as powerful lesson to would-be attackers: it tells them that the innocent will defend their lives without question.
I also left the following comment:
This is an excellent idea. Armed school staff have already saved lives.
Back in 1997, troubled teen Luke Woodham started shooting at students at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. Fortunately, assistant principal Joel Myrick was able to retrieve his firearm from his car in the school parking lot, and use it to force Woodham to surrender.
Unfortunately, Woodham killed two students and wounded seven more before Myrick stopped him.
Who knows how many of those kids could have been spared if Principal Myrick had been allowed to keep his firearm concealed on his person in the classroom?
For more information on similar situations when honest armed citizens have used their weapons to stop bad guys, I recommend this essay: " When mass killers meet armed resistance".
(As an incidental note, Penn and Teller are both big fans of Ayn Rand. They mentioned this to Diana when we attended one of their shows in Las Vegas a couple of years ago and they saw that Diana was carrying a copy of The Fountainhead. We also got their autographs that evening, since I was one of the audience volunteers who picked a card out of the deck for one of their tricks.)
By Paul Hsieh @ 5:51 PM
Here's an extremely simple solution to our crime problems - the "Gun Free Zone"!
I wonder why no one's thought of this before?
On a more serious note, I've never felt safe in a "gun free zone" because I know I'm just a sitting duck for any criminal willing to disregard the law.
On the other hand, I've never felt safer than when I'm browsing at our local gun store, because I know that no criminal in his right mind would dare start any kind of trouble in place where there are dozens of trained, armed, law-abiding citizens ready and willing to protect themselves from bad guys. Similarly, I sleep very soundly at our autumn local Objectivist camp-outs, where most of us bring some sort of firearm to protect ourselves against four-legged or two-legged predators...
Currently, the federal government does not allow people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. The Dept of the Interior is considering changing that rule so that if you have a valid permit to carry in your state, then you can also carry in a National Park located within that state.
(Currently, one can do so in a National Forest but not a National Park.)
The Fed Gov is currently requesting public comments in support or opposition of this measure.
As a concealed carry permit holder in Colorado, I strongly support this change in rules to allow the carrying of firearms in national parks as state law allows.
The ban on firearms in national parks disarms honest, law abiding citizens, thereby preventing them from protecting themselves if attacked. Meanwhile, the criminals know that park visitors are easy pickings, precisely because they are disarmed.
The standard claim that allowing concealed carry will result in more violence and crime is plainly false -- as empirical data from the 36 states with shall-issue concealed carry laws proves. Morally, the government ought to allow people to protect themselves from criminals in emergency situations when the police are not on hand.
Please do implement this change in rules.
After I wrote that, I saw that others noted that the rule should allow a concealed carry permit holder from any state to carry in any national park. That's right, and I wish I had thought of that!
I want to thank The Gazette for its editorial advocating concealed carry on campus ("UCCS students want their guns," Our View, April 13).
I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.
If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.
CU's anti-gun policy is wrong. It ought to be changed, not just in Colorado Springs, but in Boulder, too.
I applaud the efforts of the UCCS chapter of Concealed Carry on Campus.
Such efforts are just starting at Boulder, too. Students and parents wanting to advocate concealed carry at CU Boulder should contact Jim Manley at james.m.manley@colorado.edu.
Thanks to political activism by gun rights advocates over past 25 years, 36 states in the US now have laws mandating "shall issue" concealed carry permits -- meaning that any law-abiding citizen with appropriate training can obtain a permit, without any further permission from local law enforcement. (I've had a concealed carry permit since 2001.) Contrary to the frantic cries of anti-gun liberals, the streets have not run with blood -- precisely because concealed carry permit holders are not criminals but rather responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their weapons in emergency situations to defend themselves from criminals.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
