Anti-gun progressives just don't get it, and they won't be happy until the state has disarmed everyone
According to bed-wetter William Saletan, we’re lucky. He tells the story of armed citizen Joe Zamudio, who heard the shots coming from the Safeway that fateful Saturday when a congresswoman, a judge, a nine-year old girl, and other innocent victims were gunned down in cold blood...
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting.BULLSPIT!
Only a gun-fearing, thumb-sucking big-government sheeple could draw such a conclusion. In fact, a reasonable person draws the exact opposite conclusion from the story. Two armed citizens acting not like the trigger-happy cowboys that populate the cringing imaginations of gun-grabbers, but two men taking measure of the situation and acting on the side of prudence and caution. The total absence of such fanciful stories Saletin conjures is a glaring refutation of his conclusion.
We do not have concealed carry citizens shooting up crime scenes, killing innocent bystanders and other would-be rescuers. I just hasn’t happened. I can say that with confidence without doing my characteristic research. Had even one such event ever occurred in the last 30 years, the liberal media would still be shouting through bullhorns about it.
Mr. Zamudio’s story, combined with the absence of Saletin’s fearful fantasies, proves that Americans are adults and can be trusted with their rights, including the right to arm themselves.
If gun restrictions are so effective, why do “gun free zones” like New Jersey and California experience more gun violence than free-carry states like Arizona, Montana and Colorado?
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
15 comments:
Looking at the source of the quote (Slate) this is not surprising, he is simply preaching to his choir.
It is what I like to call trickle-down ignorance.
You're right, of course ... but come on now —admit it: you have to appreciate the left's consistency.
I think it has become convenient for the left to ignore facts; and if they continue to make up new ones, or for the lack of a better term, lie to the American public, maybe the American people will come to accept such outlandish views. Fact: 99% of gun owners do not commit violent crimes. Fact: most violence from lethal weapons comes from places that effectively bans or severely restricts gun ownership. Chicago is one of those cities, but we cannot help but notice that Chicago is a high-murder rate city. Telling a citizen he may not carry a concealed weapon does not prevent a thug from doing exactly that.
Still, the argument fails to acknowledge the fact that most people killed by illegally owned handguns are themselves a bunch of thugs who deserved killing. If we are honest, the untimely and unexpected death of Bad Bad Le Roy Brown probably saved taxpayers a lot of money in court and prison costs.
These are common arguments thrown around by the gun haters and cowards. They only show how little they think and how they always take the more hysterical and stupid position.
If we banned guns simply because citizens might get confused and kill everyone else, then we should prevent cops and security guards from carrying guns too. Think about it, if a cop turns up and gets shot dead by the shooter and drops his gun in front of you. You pick it up, another cop turns up and can shoot you by mistake.
If liberals believe that no guns = peace and tranquility, why is it that when a democrat visits a supposedly gun-free Australia, his/her body guards are armed.
The truth is that it's not really about gun control, sure your average liberal thinks it's about safety, but for their leftist masters it's about control over everything not just guns.
Hmm - I saw Zamudio on TV talking about the situation. He said he reengaged the safety on his weapon because he saw the slide was racked on the shooter's gun, so he just shoved the guy holding it into the wall. And that's when everyone said the shooter was on the ground. I got the impression he felt he wasn't in mortal danger since the slide was racked.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio made the split-second decision he did? Yes, and we're enormously lucky his reaction was to run towards the sound of gunfire, prepared to put his life on the line to defend strangers.
I would have to think that in the back of Carolyn McCarthy's mind she had wished there were an armed citizen ready to take out that lunatic from that fateful train ride that took her husband's life and nearly her son's
When you look back through history, you see many instances of anarchic gun fights, especially in our "frontier days." We see less of that now because we are a more urban, industrialized, organized society. The understandable point Saletan makes is that if we simply allowed unrestricted gun rights - verey other right has some restrictions, by the way - we may well find ourselves stepping back into those "frontier days." It seems utterly irresponsible and unrealistic to even consider unrestricted gun rights in a modern, developed, huge, urbanized, industrialized, civilized nation.
The constituion says we can have a gun. It says nothing about what kind of guns should be made and used and sold and traded and imported and exported and how and why and by whom. Therefore, as the constitution reminds us, we can regulate the militia.
JMJ
Gun prohibition would be as effective as marijuana prohibition; and we know the consequences of that boondoggle. I agree with that mountain states (especially Wyoming) has lower gun violence, but don't forget the northeast. New Hampshire open carry is common, but the biggest surprise is socialist Vermont. The irony is, Vermont has the best gun laws in the nation. We better keep this info in the low profile category, otherwise Vermont central planners might catch wind of it.
"Out here, a man takes care of his own problems." The Duke
Wrong JMJ...it doesn't say you can have a gun, it says: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
"Well regulated" at the time of writing did not imply heavy and intense government regulation. The intent is far from it. As the constitution repeatedly establishes checks and balances on power, a well regulated militia was the check on and counterpoint to the standing army.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." - Noah Webster
The Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
"the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe
"Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason
" . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ." - Alexander Hamilton
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Restricted Rights? Jeez, I didn't think there were any of you New Jersey Tories left.
This is so typical of the Left. They hate guns and so forth, but I wonder how they would feel if someone broke into their home and were threatened, I believe they would be pining for a gun at that time.
The majority of people who own guns are responsible with them.
"...we may well find ourselves stepping back into those "frontier days."
So is there any actual evidence for this fantasy of yours jmj? Can you point to a town or city where gun restrictions were lifted and immediately thereafter a massive shootout ensued killing all and sundry?
"It seems utterly irresponsible and unrealistic to even consider unrestricted gun rights in a modern, developed, huge, urbanized, industrialized, civilized nation."
You do know that just because people are allowed to have guns doesn't mean that you must go and get one too, if you don't like guns, then don't get one. Just don't try to foist your soft-fascist ideology upon peaceful, law-abiding people defending themselves from criminals. What is utterly irresponsible and totalitarian is even considering passing even more restrictions that only hinder the law-abiding and peaceful citizens.
"The constituion says we can have a gun. It says nothing about what kind of guns should be made and used and sold..."
You want to limit people to have those long rifles where you load the bullet through the front? If you want some support for that sort of stupidity, you may want to provide an example of how you can regulate the criminal class to one gun and a type of gun, otherwise you're just back to the usual irresponsible and totalitarian soft-fascist policy of hindering the peaceful and law-abiding while the criminals go unhindered.
May i also suggest you get some of those gun-free stickers and put that on your house, car, back etc. After all you believe that no guns = peace and tranquility, no?
Cheers
MK
When you look back through history, you see many instances of anarchic gun fights, especially in our "frontier days."
Really? How many instances, exactly? What percentage of the population engaged in gunfights? I'm thinking Saturday morning westerns are no substitute for actual history. The number of such incidents was miniscule in the same way vigilantism was rare.
This argument is based on false premises: possession of a firearm produces an unstable or dangerous society. Just the opposite is true: government restriction of firearms does give thoroughly bad people a distinct advantage over law abiding, good people. How does government foster individual liberty while prohibiting the right of self-defense? When government takes away the right of citizens to own guns, then only the government owns guns. Only a stupid person would trust government this much, and this does say quite a lot about the people of Michigan and New Jersey where you will find the four most dangerous cities in the entire country.
I'm sorta in agreement with Jersey McJones on the notion of, given that nearly every other right has provisos or restrictions, why should we have such loosely-restricted gun rights? My main point - and I'm not a gun hater - is that HANDGUN sales should be prohibited to the public, reserving those for military and law enforcement personnel only.
I'm all in favor of upholding our constitutional right to own firearms and I believe we can execrise that right just fine with rifles. Our society has proven time and again that it cannot - should not - be trusted with handgun ownership.
Frankly, I'm more in fear of the grossly-irresponsible, law-abiding sumbitch next door than I am of criminals when it comes to the potential for my family to encounter gun-related violence.
Now, all that having been said, lemme spin this situation around for a sec...
What's the purpose of having concealed handgun rights if those who have said cannot be called upon to take action in a crisis? If you're going to justify to me the need to carry a handgun around like Marsahll Dillion, then by God, use the thing and put these sh*tbags down. No trials, no prison, no second chance to harm any more people. If the pro-concealed handgun litany is to be believed, I should not be fearful that concealed-carry citizens will harm innocent bystanders - in fact, they're perhaps even more skillful at weapons handling than the average police officer.
So, why shouldn't I be outright incensed that those self-appointed heroes didn't step up when the opportunity arose? Just as an off-duty emergency responder cannot bypass the scene of an accident without legal repercussions, maybe the same should be true for concealed-carry citizens failing to take action at a crime scene.
"My main point - and I'm not a gun hater - is that HANDGUN sales should be prohibited to the public, reserving those for military and law enforcement personnel only."
Unless you can find a way to prevent 100% of criminals from getting a gun, then all you are doing is ensuring the law-abiding cannot use a gun to defend themselves while the criminals can.
"I'm all in favor of upholding our constitutional right to own firearms and I believe we can execrise that right just fine with rifles."
That's all well and good, but carrying a rifle around for self-defense is not practical, carrying a small revolver or pistol is far easier, more practical and safer from the point of a criminal attacking you to steal your gun. Rifle, easy to spot, handgun, not so much.
"Our society has proven time and again that it cannot - should not - be trusted with handgun ownership."
How? Where? Evidence please? Are you saying that the vast majority of gun owners have done something illegal using their gun, 60%, 70%, 90% of them? And if you can prove that and don't forget to make the distinction between rifles and handguns since you seem to be alright with rifles, you also need to prove that those very people would not have done so if they were not allowed to own a handgun? Unless off course you mean that simply owning a gun makes you feel frightened and therefore all must be stripped of their means to defend themselves, again merely because you feel so.
"Frankly, I'm more in fear of the grossly-irresponsible, law-abiding sumbitch..."
Thanks for smearing all law-abiding gun owners as sons of bitches, either way, your feelings of fear and inadequacy are no justification for stripping those who are responsible and law-abiding from defending themselves from the criminals you prefer, irrespective of whether you feel they are the spawn of female dogs. Sorry, but that's a stupid argument.
"What's the purpose of having concealed handgun rights if those who have said cannot be called upon to take asction in a crisis?"
I don't know of any law prohibiting a law abiding gun owner gun from doing the right thing in a crisis, perhaps you know of one? And i didn't hear any gun owners shouting "so long suckers, you're on your own" before fleeing from a shooting, do you know of any out of sheer curiosity?
Either way it's irrelevant, the purpose of concealed-carry is to allow the person to defend themselves with a gun, nothing else. If we were to follow your stupid [sorry but it is] logic, we can also say, What's the purpose of having drivers license rights if those who have said cannot be called upon to drive strangers around the country in a crisis or else?
"So, why shouldn't I be outright incensed that those self-appointed heroes didn't step up when the opportunity arose?"
Firstly, law-abiding gun owners don't see themselves as self-appointed heroes or sumbitches as you prefer. Secondly, law-abiding gun owners cannot be everywhere a crisis happens.
Thirdly, you can be as incensed as you want to, no problem with that, fall on the floor and throw a tantrum if you like, but allowing people to defend themselves is not conditional to them putting their lives on the line for you or anyone else. Might i add, calling them sumbitches isn't a good first move if you want them to help you against some criminal out to rearrange your teeth, perhaps leave that for after the bullets have stopped flying or here's a really radical thought, if you can't bring yourself to say something nice, just don't say anything at all.
A license to carry a concealed weapon is not a license to use it. The law is clear about when a citizen may employ deadly force. I think the individual in Tucson who had a firearm and did not use it exercised exceptional judgment because the law requires that the least force be used to subdue a suspect.
As Mustang intimated, we have far too many dimwits running around in this country suggesting the 2nd Amendment has no merit, and that is purely and simply crap. MK's points are well taken.
Judging from previous comments, we have far too many people willing to see government in charge of the people, rather than the people in charge of their government. Damn communists!
Post a Comment