In the Wake of Newtown
In the aftermath of another horrific mass murder in our country, the media is once again
flooded with pundits offering proposed ‘solutions’ to these crimes of passion. Some cry: “Get
rid of guns!” Some chant: “Eliminate the assault weapons!” Some will speak out for stricter gun
regulations, others will harp on more stringent mental health evaluations. The question is: Is it
ethically right to say who can or cannot own guns? Can we rid ourselves of a sufficient amount
of weapons to make our society safe? Can we legislate to the point at which we feel secure in
our persons? Can we ever lock ourselves in so tightly that no one can access us for harm?
The recent event in Newtown, Connecticut answers some of those questions quite clearly.
Connecticut has some of the strictest gun regulations in the country, second only to California in
rigidity, and yet the horrible massacre at Sandyhook Elementary School still occurred. The
school where the shooting happened was “locked down” and considered secure, yet the murderer
gained access. The killer was denied the lawful ability to purchase weapons on his own, so the
purchase regulations were effective, yet he still had access to weapons to carry out his intentions.
When one is asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, some
worry that the mere presence of guns in their homes would put themselves and their families in
danger. Can't a gun go off by accident? Wouldn't it be more likely to be used against them in an
altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that
the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a person needs.
I own several guns and train with them regularly. The reason for this is simple: I have
always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions
about how quickly the police can respond when...