Ordinary people who volunteer to carry guns, who would receive significant and regular training from the government, might be in a position to intervene. I’ve always wondered why this suggestion is immediately ridiculed; properly trained citizens can serve as a deterrent if bad guys know that they might encounter them, and in some circumstances they might also be able to subdue or kill the attackers before they can kill dozens of people at will.
It’s the “at will” part that bothers me. It always has. Why do people who support restrictive gun control — and I count myself as someone who does — mock the notion that, in some circumstances, particularly and exclusively at locations where lots of people gather to work, play, or live, having a few highly trained, armed good guys shooting back at the bad guys might be an option worth exploring?
It is absolutely consistent to believe that anyone who buys a gun should be subject to an extensive background check, should undergo some sort of standardized training, must be re-certified, and must register their firearms with the state… and also believe that it would be nice to have more of these people around when bad people start shooting randomly.
I would love for guns to vanish, but I do not live in a world where guns will vanish.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member