The Winston Salem Journal is at it again, compounding ignorance with an anti-gun agenda to create an editorial more notable for lies and half truths than for useful information. The first thing the Journal should do is its own research. You see, concealed carriers are actually 5 times LESS likely to shoot somebody than the average person in North Carolina. Indeed, as the NYT inadvertently proved, people with concealed carry permits are far more responsible than the average person when it comes to murder, violent crimes, or drunk driving. That is not to say that those who have a permit to carry are perfect but it does point to this group being far safer than the norm. If I had a group of concealed carry permit holders around me, I would feel pretty safe. Go and check out The Truth About Guns website for all the facts.
Next, the editorialists seem to take a great leap of logic off the page and into the great blue sky with this closing statement:
On this page, we recently praised the Winston-Salem City Council for exempting most city parks from the new state law allowing those with concealed-carry permits to strap on their handguns in public parks. We support the Second Amendment, but it has to be applied with common sense.Now the great leap occurs here because they assume, apparently that if concealed carry permit holders did not have guns, nobody would. Right? How else to explain the thinking going on here. It is rather like the You Tube Video seen here. But if dissuading people who mean to do you harm was so easy, I doubt guns would have been invented in the first place. So which would you rather have when your children are playing on the teeter-totter and some bad guy tries to abduct them: a cell phone, or a cell phone and a gun. It has become cliche, but when seconds count, the police are minutes away. And if there is you, with your gun, and someone else has a gun too, chances are your bad guy is going to run away.
We realize that there are plenty of responsible permit holders out there, but most have never had to fire at a human being in the midst of an emotional situation. And while troublemakers may be relatively few, the damage and tragedy they can inflict is large. Expanding concealed-gun rules is not worth the danger to the rest of us — and to our children.
The editorialists close with a typical tag line that conjures up the notion of "for the children." It has become so well worn that it should be a trademarked term. In any case, two can play at that. I take my grand children to the park when it is nice out. Mrs. PolyKahr is convinced that sending the kids to the park helps to wear them down when it comes time to go to bed. I am not so sure, but that's a story for another day. Having been permitted to carry, believe me I want that advantage if someone tries to abduct my grand kids. You take a fat old out of shape fart like me facing a fit 20 year old armed with at least a knife, possibly a gun? Hell, yes I want to equalize the odds if I can.
But there is moral argument to be made in favor of the idea that the peaceful armed citizen should be allowed to carry anywhere he chooses. The State, be it the city or the county, ultimately can not prevent someone who means harm to others from carrying pretty much anywhere that person chooses, short of setting up an oppressive police state. Perhaps this is what the Winston Salem Journal wants, but it is not what we have now. Laws on the books only allow prosecution after the peaceful armed citizen is dead, and signs only warn that the bad guy is about to incur another charge. That being the case, the defense of our lives, and the lives of our young, depend on us alone. Shouldn't we then be able to make our own determination about where and when we are going to carry a weapon? Why should I let others, who will not be there if the gravest extreme should rear its ugly head, make those decisions for me.