An armed society is a polite society; disarm society and only criminals will be armed
On this tenth anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, I saw Time's story mentioned at Twitter about Americans' refusal to give up their guns. "Whatever momentum the Columbine killings gave to gun control has long since petered out." See "Ten Years After Columbine, It's Easier to Bear Arms." My first reaction was, "And this is a bad thing why?" I will always remember driving past New Life Church in Colorado Springs only hours after the tragedy was ended by a trained, armed parishioner who stopped a gunman with her concealed handgun and saved lives. The cowardly gunman was only wounded. Instead of fighting back, he committed suicide. Read Jeanne Assam's story. Why didn't Time talk about that example? We all know why. There's only one side to the debate in the mainstream media: they think the only way to reduce violence is to disarm society. I'm coming to the opposite conclusion: I'm seriously considering honoring the Columbine victims by taking firearms training, purchasing a handgun, and applying for a concealed carry permit. We all have a civic duty to protect the weak from the strong.

I'm willing to keep an open mind, but it seems to me that an armed society is a polite society. If there were more stories of trained citizens stopping homicidal gunmen, there would be a certain level of deterrence. Gunmen not deterred risk experiencing suicide by a concealed weapon wielded by a trained citizen. I would feel differently if there were news reports of trained, law-abiding citizens causing loss of life. But what we have now are murderers preying on the unarmed. We can reduce the likelihood of future Columbine tragedies by doing our civic duty and producing more New Life Church stories.