A Supremely Bad Idea
I own a business and rent space from a police union in Maine, as does another business. It seems that on Sunday night, only minutes after I had left, someone forced entry, presumably to steal things, but who really knows, they might have been looking for Narnia.
I assume that whomever did the breaking and entering waited for me to leave and it’s a rather good thing they did, because I carry a concealed weapon almost all the time. While it’s obvious the criminal element in society is not made up of all of our greatest thinkers, in this case, as in so many others, there was probably at least a low level risk assessment carried out; the result being that the crook saw his life or risk of arrest as too high while the building was occupied.
Now, it may have just been dumb luck or the math may have been totally different, but I think my assumptions are fair.
I’m glad I wasn’t there because even though I spent 6 years in the Army training to kill people and I carry a weapon most of the time, I have no interest in shooting anyone. However, God forbid someone make some threat against my life or the lives of those around me, I’ll step over as many criminal bodies as I must to bring the situation to a conclusion favorable to me.
Maine is a state with very high gun ownership and a comparatively low standard for the use of deadly force, to say nothing of loose laws regarding concealed carry. To imagine these facts don’t influence the behavior of the criminal class is pure foolishness. I would also contend that stricter gun control in my state would do practically nothing to impact criminal behavior for the better and merely result in a citizenry that poses less of a threat to potential criminals as they carry out their various misdeeds and infamies.
With that said, I wouldn’t mind the government requiring universal background checks on most weapons sales*, as long as transfers between extended family members were exempted and private sellers had to use licensed firearms dealers for the background checks. A fee for their services would be reasonable as long as it is set by law, reasonably low (guns bought on the internet have to be shipped to a licensed dealer who runs the background check before releasing the firearms, and collects a small fee, I paid $15 when I bought a gun online a few years ago), and background checks are waived where there are no participating dealers within a reasonable distance.
In closing, this latest situation with the break in illustrates a point that makes gun control advocates cringe. Criminals generally flee upon meeting serious resistance. Rarely are mass shooters killed by police, they tend to kill themselves or give up as soon as they meet armed resistance. In this case, as soon as the perpetrator became aware the police were coming, he/she flew away like a balloon in the wind. There is no reason not to think that were we to allow certain teachers to be armed that they would prove to have the same effect that armed resistance has on mass shooters and other criminals. Like I said, this jack-a-nape seems to have waited until I left to break in and fled at the first flash of blue light.
*Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think background checks would have any significant impact on any type of crime, that fact might very well transform such a requirement into an unreasonable burden. If a restriction on a right serves a legitimate government interest, but doesn’t work, it’s unreasonable despite the government interest. That’s why I say an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, just like a ban on carrying weapons in public has been ruled to be unconstitutional in Illinois.