“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” — Thomas Jefferson

While it’s been many years since Jefferson said those words, it’s still unnervingly relevant today in the debate and reaction to legal concealed-carry laws. As it is now in El Dorado and many other locations across the state, it’s borderline impossible to not run into the telltale “concealed-carry prohibited” signs that grace many business fronts in your daily travels. Looking at these, I have to wonder if we’re seriously deluding ourselves into feeling safe.
 
I understand the desire to protect citizens and prevent altercations, but we still have the issues we do with crime in today’s society. When it comes down to it, the signs we see posted could just as well advertise “easier to execute criminal activity here” because now any potential would-be criminal knows he has little fear of retribution at such establishments. The desire to protect citizens is the exact reason this shouldn’t be restricted.

I’d pose a simple hypothetical situation to those against concealed-carry. A person is planning to rob a business. They have two choices. At one business, they prohibit concealed-carry. In the other, however, carrying is not prohibited, so the criminal has no idea how many people are prepared to take him down, casting doubt on his plans and leaving him potentially outnumbered. I wonder which business you think they’re going to pick. A straightforward answer if you please.

I don’t pretend thinking up such a situation is original. However, it seems it needs to be spelled out because there are still people who want to bend the argument in some other direction because they realize what an honest answer would do to their point, and what it’d make them sound like to disagree. Putting such prohibitions on honest citizens only enables those who intend to break the law. It’s like locking a metal door on a glass house.

One of the arguments I hear most often from those against carrying is predictions of “Wild West” type shootouts and an increase of violence in general. The reason the debate seems to live still is few facts come into the discussion with people holding my view and the other side. With that said, I want to offer something legitimate behind my views. Imagine, if you will, a place where carrying guns isn’t questioned, but is mandatory if you want to live there. This time what I’m suggesting isn’t hypothetical. Welcome to Kennesaw, Ga.

In March of 1982, over 26 years ago, the town took issue with another nearby town passing what concealed-carry opponents are all for: a gun ban. Kennesaw reacted by passing an ordinance that required the head of every household in their town to carry a gun. Since then, there hasn’t been a single resident involved in a fatal shooting, as victim, defender or attacker. I’d really like to emphasize that part. There hasn’t been a single shooting related death there for the last quarter-century. Also, directly after the ordinance was adopted crime in the town reduced drastically, and has gone down to this very day. Keep in mind this isn’t some fluke isolated incident; it’s the only town to take such an extreme measure.

I’d like to provide a contrast to Kennesaw. You recall the Virginia Tech massacre? Well guess what stance they took on concealed-carry? That’s right, they were against it (and still are, though their rationale evades me).

While police officers serve the role of the public peace, they can’t realistically be everywhere they’re needed at once. If these institutions really want to protect and save people’s lives, they have to stop hoping that if they just will the bad guys to go away, they will. When the harsh reality of this situation does strike these places. It won’t be gun-toting cowboys...just the bandits.