More on Eric Thompson, and ending defenselessness on college campuses

About two weeks ago, I wrote about my decision to buy a couple magazines from Eric Thompson's website (purchases from which were used by the killers at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University). I did this as a show of support for a man who is ridiculously and grossly unfairly being blamed by some as being somehow responsible (OK--I also did it because I wanted those magazines, but the other reason sounds a lot more noble).

Now, the LA Times has an article about Mr. Thompson, and call me the suspicious type, but I can't quite shake the idea that the author would like readers to sympathize with the "blame the dealer" crowd. Maybe it's the title--"Gun dealer wants weapons on campus," as if to imply that his motivation is expansion of his customer base. Or maybe it's things like this:

Thompson donated to funds for the victims on both campuses. And he continued to sell guns.

As if there is anything inconsistent about generously providing for the victims, while continuing to sell the means to avoid becoming a victim.

The article, by the way, points out that some citizen disarmament advocates, not content with trying to close the mythical "gun show loophole" (and the perhaps even more ludicrous "newspaper loophole"), want to prohibit internet sales of guns (and accessories?), despite the fact that internet gun sales still have to go through a dealer in the purchaser's state, with the usual background check.

Guns must be shipped to one of the nation's 70,000 federally licensed firearms dealers, who do background checks before releasing the package to the buyer.

Gun control advocates condemn online transactions as open to fraud, because convicted criminals can browse online, then pay someone with a clean record to place the order and pick up the firearm.

The same information, of course, can be found in Gun Digest--should libraries be required to run background checks before permitting someone to look at it?

Thompson's solution to college campus massacres is, as the title of the article implies, rather different.

Thompson starts with the uncontested fact that campus shootings are often over before law enforcement can respond. At Virginia Tech, Cho barricaded the classroom building and shot himself in the head as police broke through. At Northern Illinois, Kazmierczak killed five students in less than two minutes; he committed suicide before police arrived.

But what if someone else in those classrooms -- a student, a teacher -- had been carrying a gun? Isn't it at least possible some lives could have been saved? Isn't it worth giving our children that chance?

"Otherwise, it's 'Welcome to your killing spree,' " Thompson says. "Because there's nothing to stop these shooters."

He argues too that allowing guns on campus could deter future shootings.

That perspective has caught on widely since the carnage at Virginia Tech. Most states long ago declared schools gun-free zones; only Utah allows concealed weapons at all public colleges.

Abolishing college "defense-free zones" is another issue I've discussed recently, and an idea whose time has come.

This post is starting to run rather long, and Wasted Electrons has some superb commentary on the subject of ending mandated defenselessness on campus, so I'd like to send readers there next.

For anyone still with me, check out what War on Guns has to say about Arizona college campus police being issued assault weapons . . . oops--I mean "patrol rifles," and then read this genius's tail-wagging endorsement of the idea of more heavily armed "Only Ones," combined with utter contempt for the idea of students not being denied the means to defend themselves.