Wednesday, July 25, 2012

People Don't Stop Killers. People With Guns Do.

Even editorialists at the Democrat and Chronicle, who on Second Amendment issues typically don't know their assault rifle from their elbow, acknowledge in today's paper that "New York, after all, has some of the most severe gun laws in the nation and its streets are hardly the safest."   Of course they don't even consider the possibility of cause-and-effect.

To remedy the deficiency, we commend to your attention these observations by writers with a closer understanding of human nature:

[E]very multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.


People Don't Stop killers.   People With Guns Do.


Anonymous said...

Then what happened last week? Colorado allows citizens to own guns, so why was it Holmes wasn't stopped?

Philbrick said...

Guns weren't permitted in the theater.

Anonymous said...

I was puzzled when the President, speaking the day after the incident, said "My daughters go to the movies. They could have been in that theatre."

Had they been, the Secret Service would have accompanied them. Mr Holmes would have squeezed off perhaps two shots before being sawed in half.

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see. My mistake for not reading the linked article. The issue is with the theater not allowing guns, not a restrictive gun laws.

So, you're suggesting forcing business owners to allow guns when they don't want them? Also, do you think someone who was packing would have been able to stop Holmes, what with the body armor he was wearing, tear gas filling the darkened and crowded theater, etc, etc?

Keep in mind, I'm speaking as a supporter of the 2nd amendment. My issue is stupid arguments on both sides of the fence do nothing to advance the conversation. A private citizen in that theater that night with a gun would have exacerbated the situation and left more dead and wounded in their wake.

Anonymous said...

"A private citizen in that theater that night with a gun would have exacerbated the situation and left more dead and wounded in their wake."

Actually, I consider this a stupid argument.

If some brave selfless individual with a gun opened fire on this guy, he or she would minimally have drawn his fire away from the other innocent people in the theater, perhaps savings lives as people were allowed to flee and escape the area.

I would have considered that person a hero.

Much like the shootout with police and two criminals in L.A. years ago, those two were wearing body armor. Police still fired upon them with their pistols and shotguns knowing full well they would have minimal impact.

But because they kept up, the criminals focused on them and not any citizens that could have been in the area.

I certainly would have used my firearm to try to protect my family even if it meant I'd lose my own life.

Anonymous said...

"forcing business owners to allow guns..."

I also consider this a stupid argument.

I have a legal right to own and carry my firearm and am licensed to do so. Only the government (sadly so) can legally ban me from carrying it in certain places. If I stopped a robber from stealing from a business owner at gunpoint, you betcha he or she would be very grateful, even if he/she had a sign up that kept LEGAL gun owners from carrying in that store.

Having to take my pistol off and store it in the trunk of my car because a business says I cannot wear it in their establishment if very dangerous. If someone breaks into my car or steals it, they now are in possession of my weapon.

Sorry, but you don't really sound like a 2nd Amendment supporter. Or at the very least, an uniformed one who doesn't fully believe in 2nd Amendment Rights and issues.

Anonymous said...

Actually, your mistake is twofold:

1) Presuming that restrictive gun laws would actually keep weapons out of the hands of determined whack jobs like Holmes, and

2) Ignoring the deterent effect. Nothing will stop the Holmes' of the world, but most people do fear death. Accordingly, they will not do anything that is apt to get them killed, which is more likely to happen if other people are armed.

In the legal profession, there is a saying: "Hard cases make bad law." In other words, it is pointless to try to craft policy from a set of facts like this episode.

The statistics are irrefutable. If you stay away from the illicit drug market, your chances of being shot in this nation are damn near zero.

(And no, I don't believe that anyone in this thread suggested that private property owners should be forced to allow guns on their property. Please refer me to the statement suggesting otherwise.)