1703661645
What is shocking and new to us is unfortunately a widespread reality for society across the ocean. We’ve heard for years about a madman shooting unsuspecting people in public places and buildings without even being involved. Fortunately, the security apparatus was quietly preparing for this risk, while the laypeople lived in the naive lie that something like this could not happen in our country. However, people in the rescue and security services have known and said for a long time that the question is not if, but when. We now know the answer.
And we also know the long-term policy they want to push across the ocean, which is to make gun ownership more restrictive to the public. The United States took this path and the result? There are no fewer attacks on schools by crazy gunmen. I don’t know the exact statistics of all incidents of this kind in the United States, but judging from the facts I know, banning the public from owning guns does nothing to solve the problem.
A witness with a legally held gun responds to the school shooting
Let’s try to look at the given situation from the opposite perspective, in our situation and after the recent difficulties that we still remember well. Same attacker, same scenario. On the same day, at the same time, again the school building on Palachova náměstí, where a regular student of the school has been coming for many years and nothing prevents him from entering. After all, like his classmates, he goes there every school day.
The event begins, the attacker takes the prepared weapons in his hands and begins to mercilessly shoot everyone he meets in the school corridors. But now the scenario is changing. Among those attacked is a student with a firearms license and a legally owned firearm. He is trained to handle a weapon, carries it and knows how to use it. He also knows that his intervention can prevent worse consequences than if he does nothing and runs away. He draws his gun and shoots the attacker.
Would it be helpful if the student couldn’t have a gun?
Let’s leave aside for now the consideration of whether a shooter equipped with body armor would be able to slow down or even stop a regular handgun. The crux of the matter remains the fact that the scenario of the event in question has changed. The defense of the defenseless was built by someone who was in the right place at the right time. Would he have been able to do it if he hadn’t received a firearms license due to the tightening of the requirements?
If I myself have to choose between tightening the conditions for owning weapons for decent people and a person who actively defends the defenseless around him, I will definitely choose the second option. At the same time, I add the inherent fact that gun ownership is not a “hobby” for everyone. However, I think that even today, those interested in owning a gun must meet a number of conditions, including psychological tests.
However, as we all know, a psychopath can outsmart anyone. At the same time, no one can look into someone else’s head and we have no idea what is going on inside us. Hunters have had safes full of long-guns at home for centuries and used them to shoot people in schools? The problem isn’t gun ownership, is it?
questionnaire
Which solution to the problem do you prefer?
Maintaining current access to obtain a firearms passport
Dramatic tightening of the conditions for obtaining a gun passport
A complete ban on gun ownership by the public
A total of 87 readers voted.
#event #place #student #quickly #returns #fire