Campus concealed carry and my response

In responding to the comments on this article, I posted the following:

"Gun Regulation or GUN freedom is not the issue...The issue is the PEOPLE committing the crimes"

It is true that the people are the problem. People commit crimes. People kill people. HOWEVER! Simply saying that neither total gun regulation or total freedom will fix the problem is stupid. The notion that the only acceptable course of action is the perfect solution simply ensures nothing gets done. It takes no courage or wisdom to say "Everyone's wrong, now let's all be nice to each other and find a better way." That's what we call Utopian Idealism. It didn't work in Kindergarten, and it doesn't work in the real world either.

Policies, actions, etc, can be divided into four categories:

1. Things which produce good results
2. Things which do NOT produce good results
3. Things which produce negative results
4. Things which do NOT produce negative results

Notice that 1 and 4 are not the same thing, nor are 2 and 3. Some items MAY occupy multiple categories, but not necessarily.

So what? Here's what: Excessive gun control at BEST falls into category number 2. There is no good that comes of it in terms of reducing crime. I don't think I need to be specific here in the interest of space, but I'll back this claim up to anyone who challenges it. Apart from doing no good, it is fairly easy to make the case that gun control DOES HARM to the effort of reducing crime. Numerous interviews of felons in and out of prison confirm this: Unarmed victims are targeted because it's easier to do whatever to them. Criminals prey SPECIFICALLY on the weak,
un-armed, and otherwise vulnerable.

On the other hand, allowing good people (we'll restrict this to Concealed Carry Permit -CCP- holders for now) to have access to guns falls into one or more of the other two categories: 4. This does no harm because it doesn't actually effect the criminal population at all. When is the last time someone with criminal intent bothered to get a CCP? And category 1: This actually makes the situation better (note I didn't say SOLVE or FIX. The emphasis is on improvement, positive difference. Not perfection) by creating uncertainty and doubt in the mind of would-be criminals. It also gives the responsible CCP holder something besides a textbook or a chair to throw at an active gunman. No guarantee, no, that's true. But the odds of a positive outcome are greater. Without opposition (CCP holder), there IS however, a guarantee that the crowd is at the gunman's mercy or lack-thereof. The choices here are "Line up to be shot" or "Let's fight it out and maybe the good guys
will win". NOBODY is saying the second option is desirable in and of itself. We don't want people shooting each other. That said, what the pro-freedom folks are arguing is that no matter now messy the second option is, it's still night and day better than the first one because it offers the OPPORTUNITY for a better outcome.

By all means, continue trying to address the root causes and start clubs and get students involved. Get police and security up to snuff on what to do, make disaster plans, teach people what to do. These are GOOD things.. But ALSO allow those who choose to take responsibility for their own lives do so. These are two options that are most definitely NOT either/or.

EDIT: 23:47

In listing the four categories for policies and actions. Notice that intent has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what you intended when you supported an idea, or set a policy. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, after all. What matters is the RESULTS. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16) The only question that matters is "Does this accomplish good?" If not, strike it out.