The Folly of Unilateral Disarmament

The Supreme Court did not reach the Second Amendment issue in Lopez because it struck the statute down on Commerce Clause grounds. But as Jacob Sullum notes at Townhall, the Ft. Hood killings illustrate the folly of "gun free zones" and unilateral disarmament.

Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke's assurance that "more guns" are not "the solution to gun violence." In this case, they assuredly were.

The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.

If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured. Furthermore, the knowledge that some of his victims would be armed might have led him to choose a different, softer target in order to maximize the impact of his attack.

I linked this article on my Facebook and some responded that guns in everyones hands is not he solution. I think this is a misreading of Sullum's column. He is careful to qualify his assertions. Obviously not everyone will have a gun, but assuming you are of a certain age and meet legitimate competency requirements having a gun can act as a deterrent. It can hardly be said that the soldiers at ft. hood were not of age or competent to carry a gun. I don't think this means he is arguing that we should arm everyone. Just that unilaterally disarming everyone does not make us safer. In fact, it may make us targets.