Fimian on gun laws – absolutely right
By Brian Schoeneman | Friday, October 29th, 2010 | Catch-All
Keith Fimian is coming under fire from the left, again, for comments he made to Mark Seagraves on Channel 50 in an interview that, among other things, discussed his stance on gun control laws. Specifically, Fimian made this statement, which has the left up in arms: ”I think that at Virginia Tech, if one of those kids in one of those classrooms was packing heat, I think that would not have happened … The perpetrator of that crime would have thought twice before walking into a classroom if he thought there was any chance of someone being armed and preventing him from doing that.”
You can watch the video here.
It took about four nanoseconds for the Connolly campaign to put out a press release condemning the statements, and their willing sycophants at Blue Virginia have already chimed in as I linked to above.
I know that the Fimian campaign has apologized for his comments, saying that the choice of words was inappropriate. I can only assume they mean the “packing heat” reference, which I find not so much inappropriate as dated – this isn’t a 1940s gangster movie. The sentiment Fimian made, however, does not need to be apologized for. He is right.
There is ample empirical evidence, beginning with John Lott’s groundbreaking study “More Guns, Less Crime” and confirmed by other research that as the number of concealed weapons permits goes up, crime goes down. When criminals can’t be sure that they are the only ones armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. Lott and others have demonstrated this statistically time and time again – and critics, at best, have only been able to argue that an increase in concealed weapons has no impact on crime rates. Banning guns simply does not reduce violent crime. Given the crime rates in DC, Chicago and other major cities which have, until the Supreme Court wisely struck them down, the most stringent bans on gun ownership, I don’t see how anyone can argue the opposite with a straight face.
Now I want to be clear – listen to what Keith said. He didn’t say one of the other students could have shot and killed Cho and saved the lives of the 32 other students who died that day. Anyone who is familiar with firearms and shooting under a stressful situation knows that even the best trained police and military types can falter under that kind of pressure. What he said was that Cho would have thought twice about shooting up Tech if he felt someone else could be armed to stop him. While there is no way to prove him right beyond a shadow of a doubt, what Fimian said is likely true. Other than Fort Hood – which was a terrorist act, not a spree killing – you rarely, if ever, hear about armed gunmen storming into places where there’s a potential for someone armed to stop them. Post Offices and schools – both gun free zones under a variety of laws and regulations – are the most common targets. Spree killers are generally suicidal, but unwilling to die alone. They want to commit suicide and they want to take as many people with them before they go. But they never seem to march into police stations, do they? No. They go for the softest of soft targets – the most blatant being the Amish schoolhouse killings in 2006.
Cho was no different. He was mentally unbalanced, but he wasn’t insane. He planned what he was doing over a long period of time. Had Tech been a place where students were free to arm themselves for self-defense, Cho very well may have altered his plans, and that may have resulted in fewer deaths.
Fimian has no need to apologize for what he said. His opinion expressed here is a common one among gun rights activists, and it’s an opinion that is backed up by evidence and hard data. Spree killers don’t choose targets where people will fight back. Gun free zones are not safer than areas where guns are permitted. What he said should not be controversial – at least, not for anyone who cares about facts and isn’t going to let the fearmongering of the gun control proponents cloud their reason.
Nothing he said was derogatory about Virginia Tech or made light of the tragedy there. What I continue to find disgusting is the use of the Virginia Tech tragedy by gun control proponents to advance their agenda – namely, trying to close the mythical “gun-show loophole” that had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at Virginia Tech. No one on the left seems to think it’s offensive to use tragedies like this to advance an unrelated political agenda, however. If anything, that Connolly again trotted out the “gun show loophole” nonsense in his press release is something HE should be apologizing for.
Speaking of apologizing, what I don’t really understand is Fimian’s apology. Anyone who thinks Fimian said something outrageous enough to warrant an apology wasn’t planning on voting for him anyway. I suppose he could have been more eloquent, but I don’t see the need for an apology at all. He said nothing that was false, inaccurate, or insensitive. He was making a policy statement – and one I agree with. When the state takes away the people’s right to defend themselves, tragedies will continue to happen.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A veteran political professional, a long-time Republican party activist and new attorney, Brian W. Schoeneman has been offering his opinions at Bearing Drift since 2010. He serves on the Board of Virginia Line Media, LLC, which operates Bearing Drift and spends his days representing the U.S. Merchant Marine in Washington, D.C. He hails from Fairfax County, Virginia, where he lives with his wife and son.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
12 Responses to "Fimian on gun laws – absolutely right"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Virginia Harlow. Virginia Harlow said: RT @bearingdrift: Web: Fimian on gun laws – absolutely right http://bit.ly/bun3i9 [...]
Will Keith Fimian stand up for the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense?
Apparently not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-FkNM8VoiE
Fimian now says what he “really meant” was that security guards at VT should have guns.
Right.
This is the guy who is gonna take a stand in the House for the Constitution?
All I know is that even when I go into businesses in states where concealed carry is allowed, most businesses I deal with have signs up saying “not here”.
I am only sharing an observation. If private businesses want to prevent customers from packing heat, why must public colleges allow students to do so?
I think there is merit on both sides of the debate, however private businesses seem to be weighing in and they are saying not on their premises. Why is that?
LD – public. That’s the answer.
LD,
I have dispute your assertion. I lived in Texas for four years and rarely, if ever, saw a “not here” sign on a business. Same thing in other states I travel in frequently such as North and South Carolina and in Georgia, esp. Atlanta.
And where do you live now? I’m in Fairfax County and have never seen a “not here” sign that I can remember. And since I carry concealed, I would have noticed.
HisRoc,
I live in Va Beach, but actually spend most of my time traveling around the nation. Nearly every business that I do business with has a no guns policy and it is not unusual at all to see the signs posted. If you have not seen the signs, you just do not get around enough is the only explanation I can come up with.
LD,
Please post the name and address of five businesses in Virginia Beach that have “not here” signs posted.
Hisroc,
Actually, it has been several years since I have delivered a load in Virginia Beach. I used to deliver loads into Galyan’s down in the “city center” before they were taken over by Dick’s when I guess we lost the account. Let’s see, before coming home my last load was to the Walmart Distribution Center in Sutherland, VA and every Walmart distribution center has a no guns policy. I do not recall if they actually had a sign posted. Other recent places for me to deliver to on my way home are the Ace Hardware distribution center in King George, VA and the Food Lion distribution center in Disputanta, VA both with no guns’ policies.
Perhaps what I should do is start snapping pictures of the signs with my cell phone when I see them to prove it to you, but I do not think the memory in my cell phone will last more then a few days storing all the snapshots.
Hopefully I can provide this link.
Did a little searching, in Missouri there is a pro-concealed carry group that provides a list of businesses in Missouri that prohibit guns from their premises. Please note the list goes on and on and on. It includes numerous national chains that do business in Virginia Beach.
http://www.missouricarry.com/list.htm
Is that good enough for you?
LD,
Very impressive, but then again so is the New York City telephone book. Most of these “not here” listings are obvious places you wouldn’t carry a weapon, such as a bank. The ones you mentioned are also predictable. Industrial distribution centers are like office buildings and other work places where you expect no-carry.
However, in going about day-to-day business I used to find that the biggest obstacle to concealed carry was schools, restaurants where alcohol is served, post offices, and banks. The problem was that once you left home with your weapon, you couldn’t go to eat where alcohol was served (such as TGIF, Applebees, etc) and you couldn’t leave your weapon locked in your car when you had to go into these places, such as stopping at the post office. Thanks to Governor Bob, we have now solved that problem, even though the gun-grabbers screamed that we were going to have drunken gunfights in “bars.” With these changes in the law, there is very little impediment to concealed carry.
BTW, I agree with the Missouri web site. Not because I think that businesses that ban concealed carry should be punished, but because their “not here” sign is no different from Brian’s sign at the top of this essay. I won’t patronize a business that advertises to criminals that everyone inside is unarmed.
HisRoc,
Just to be clear, I myself support concealed carry. However I myself am prevented from open carry let alone concealed carry. Due to federal law, I am prevented from having a gun in my truck. Right after 9-11 it was briefly considered requiring truck drivers transporting hazardous materials to have a weapon so as to deter terrorists from hijacking their loads, but this was quickly shouted down.
Think about it? If you are a terrorist which load should you hijack? Well the one that has the required placards on it that is easily identifiable as to which truck will cause the greatest mayhem. Due to federal law, the driver is almost guaranteed to be unable to defend himself as you take his load from him.
Well, that makes sense to me. Sure it does.
LD,
I had no idea that HazMat drivers are prohibited from carrying. Thanks for enlightening many of us, I’m sure.
Leave your response