Michael Eisner Is Not a Big Fan of the Second Amendment

Michael Eisner, the former CEO at Disney, doesn't like the fact that our society has "guns and automatic weapons." Hot Air has video of him saying this on CNBC today.

He was talking about how he regretted not being able to implement controversial policies while CEO of Disney. Eisner then continued that he thought "the solution is to get the public in an emotional, story-driven way, behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons." It looks like Mr. Eisner takes his coffee black, with just a hint of demagoguery. Eisner also referred to legislators who don't take action against guns as "co-conspirators."

Eisner's individual comments aside, I wanted to use this post to explain why extreme gun control or prohibition is not the answer. First of all, the gun does not commit the crime, the criminal does. Firearms are tools. Like all other tools it can be used for either good or ill. Secondly, disarming citizens give the criminal a decided advantage. Normal, law-abiding citizens will follow the law. Criminals will obviously violate the law. What is left is a confrontation between an armed criminal and an unarmed civilian. The results are blatantly grim.

This argument can easily be extrapolated to the context of the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech. Currently, the state of Virginia has a concealed weapons permit. However, the campus of Virginia Tech does not allow anyone to carry guns (except the campus police). That policy leaves a campus full of sitting ducks. Students should be allowed to be able to legally defend themselves. I find it a bit absurd to deny that right to tuition-paying students. Like I said in the previous paragraph, you are then left with the situation faced on Monday. Unarmed defenseless students and teachers up against a psychotic gunman. This does not mean the situation would have been averted had some of the students been armed. But it would give them a fighting chance.