| Choosing Targets for Violence |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Friday, 05 May 2006 | |
|
Opinion Journal.com, the online version of The Wall Street Journal editorial page, ran an article about the new United 93 movie.
One particular paragraph held additional meaning for gun right supporters. Nothing could be more innocent than the fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, attendants and pilots on that plane. Like us at this moment, they were in the act of daily life. They were not combatants in any sense. They were targeted precisely because they were unprotected. (emphasis added)This is why we refer to "no guns allowed signs" as designating "Criminal Protection Zones" or "rob me" signs. By announcing to the world that all potential victims have been disarmed, criminals are free to ply their trade without fear of reprisal from their intended victims. Criminals and terrorists have a lot in common. They want to accomplish their goals with the least amount of risk to themselves, they want the maximum payoff for their efforts, and they rely upon fear and intimidation to carry out their plans. Like any other predator, they look for the weakest target. For example, a mugger will often select a female or elderly target over a large, hulking male. This is a well known truth. When, then, is it so hard for many people to accept the idea that they will choose a place to rob that puts up a sign prohibiting firearms? It's not like the criminal is going to see the sign and give up on robbing the place because he can't take his gun in there. But, a law abiding citizen (who would otherwise pose a risk to the criminal) will either not patronize the business, or will leave his gun behind. In this environment, the criminal has free reign and everyone else can only hope that he will be merciful and not decide to leave no witnesses. No wonder so many people avoid place which post such signs as being too dangerous. |