Responsible Gun Ownership (LTTE)

Letter to the Editor (Houston Chronicle)

Roughly 1 in 30 Texans are licensed to carry. That figure doesn’t include the countless unknown number of Texan who are armed, but haven’t taken the time and paid the fees to get the government's permission to carry in public. The Houston Chronicle claims that the gun rights solution is simply to “arm more law-abiding citizens to stop shooters in their tracks,” but they neglect to mention a critical element: Training.

Throughout the article entitled "Good guys with guns can be an answer but aren't the answer" are references to the training and preparation done by Jack Wilson and the volunteer church security team, specifically mentioning their composure and self-control, in addition to Wilson’s precision and decision making in the heat of the moment. The article concludes with an emphasis on "responsible gun ownership," but that vague term seems to have become synonymous with other gun control pushes like keeping your gun locked in a safe. It fails to address accidental gun injuries that could be prevented with education and training, and it fails to ensure that a “good guy with a gun” will be ready and capable of taking on the same kind of threat faced by the White Settlement church congregation. Refusing to acknowledge training and education as key elements of gun violence prevention undercuts the seriousness of gun control proponent’s arguments nearly as much as their lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Both of these together often lead to any new push for gun safety efforts to be dismissed outright or not taken seriously.

Though often dismissed as what critics commonly refer to as “hero fantasy,” even the self-proclaimed skeptics of the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board concede that the “good guy with a gun” solution to gun violence can work and does work when the response comes from a “well-trained private citizen.”

I will be the first to admit that open carrying a rifle in a Walmart is not my definition of a “good guy with a gun” or a “well-trained private citizen.” Just like the first amendment, the second amendment can be abused by those who don’t full appreciate it. However, when when the story broke of the shooting in El Paso, and I read about a man throwing cans at the shooter to distract him, all I could think about was, what if that guy had been carrying. Instead of throwing cans and getting himself shot, he could have saved countless lives like Jack Wilson did. The article claims that “Not every church can be blessed with a Jack Wilson,” but why not? In a country with more guns than people, why can’t we encourage more gun owners to start taking their right to bear arms seriously and become the guardians and protectors they have the potential to be? The right to defend not just your life, but the life of your fellow innocent citizens is uniquely American and should be encouraged, not demonized.

Jack Wilson did not set out to be a hero, in fact, he flat out refused the title, but because of his courage and his perceived civic duty, he became a Texas legend.