if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
New Republic, Same Old Drivel
by Lee
If you’re looking for an illustration of how liberals just flat-out don’t understand CCW laws or their purpose you won’t find a better example than this post over at The Plank, which is the blog of The New Republic. Adam Kushner links to this Jacob Sullum op-ed, and quotes the following paragraphs.
In shootings at other schools, armed students or employees have restrained gunmen, possibly preventing additional murders. Four years ago at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Va., a man who had killed the dean, a professor and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns. In 1997, an assistant principal at a public high school in Pearl, Miss., likewise retrieved a handgun from his car and used it to apprehend a student who had killed three people.
Not only can guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives in situations like these; they may even make such situations less likely. It may seem implausible that the possibility of armed victims would deter a seemingly irrational, suicidal attacker such as Cho Seung-Hui, who ended his attack by shooting himself in the head. But even a gunman who expects to die during an attack does not want to be stopped before he can carry out his homicidal mission.
Kushner’s comment:
Right! Cho might have scrapped his rampage and taken up sewing if he thought he could have killed only 15 kids.
Other than the smarmy comment about taking up sewing, does Kushner not see the abject stupidity in what he wrote? There were 33 people killed in that rampage. Wouldn’t it be better if only 18 had died? Neither Sullum, nor any other rational person, claims that CCW permits will prevent these types of crime, though there is undoubtedly a deterrent effect to one degree or another. Suicidal, murderous maniacs are a problem that is never going to go away. The question then becomes, how do we deal with them? Given that suicidal, murderous maniacs somehow manage to find guns in even the most gun-free of societies, gun control is clearly not the answer. The only real solution is to give private citizens the means to defend themselves when they’re confronted with the horror of a situation such as this one.
Unless, of course, you honestly think that saving 15 lives isn’t really a positive benefit. Apparently Kushner is more interested in smarmy, self-righteous liberal indignation than he is actually coming up with workable solutions to dealing with these types of inevitable atrocities.
I’d ask Kushner the same question I posed the other day: Why is it that bloodbaths and massacres only ever take place in gun-free zones?
Allow me to take a moment and illustrate for the clueless liberals out there just how CCW deters crime. Cho walks into the dorm and kills two people. Another student, hearing the commotion, grabs the legal firearm he keeps in his closet. As Cho walks down the hall he puts two in Cho’s chest.
Two in the chest is a hell of a deterrent, isn’t it?
Comments
Some people prefer to be little more than targets, I suppose.
--TR
He’s buying into the liberal fantasy that human beings are naturally non-violent and peace-loving, despite 100,000 years of history demonstrating otherwise. It’s the gun—the evil talisman—that makes people kill. If he hadn’t been able to get a gun, he would have . . . well . . . taken up sewing.
Most humans in modern civilized society are not violent. But that means the predators like Cho can move like wolf among sheep. We have to step back from the idealistic fantasy of a world without violence and accept one where it is minimized—and preferentially used against people like this asshole.
The criminal mind is one that goes after the easiest targets, with full 2nd amendment rights, even the possiblility that someone has a gun deters a great number of them.
They still think that everything can be negotiated.
Negotiate this .
Harry Hutton mentions this. Read the comments too, they’re worth the time.
Some of out resident liberals make teh claim that CCW’ laws dont really help or make the CCW holder a more dangerous person.
PLEASE tell me, that you< liberal> are happy and feel better that none of those students were carrying a firearm.
they have made the argument that Army people is futile or simply more dangerous.
IF one of these 25 had a CCW and pistol at that moment in time.......
I want to take a moment to play devil’s advocate. Keep in mind all of my posts have been in favour of law abiding citizens rights to own guns (including hand guns).
Lee, you post made comments on the numbers of people hurt in these tragedies. However, your post doesn’t take into account the amount of people hurt or killed by guns accidentally. If we do a comparison of people killed in criminal activities to people killed by accident, do the numbers show that over all more lives would be saved? If stricter gun laws would prevent more deaths (including accidental and intentional shootings) would it be worth it to have more people killed in rampages to have the overall death rate lowered? For example, if 100 people are killed accidentally and 20 people intentionally then 120 people are dead. If we could reduce the amount killed accidentally, then overall, less people die.
Now I know a lot of accidental deaths can be prevented by responsible ownership, and that’s the problem. Even if someone is legally entitled to own a gun, it doesn’t make them responsible. Maybe it’s because I’m not familiar with gun laws, but is a secured gun closet required when purchasing a gun? Even if laws were put in place to make people buy secured gun closets with the purchase of guns, it doesn’t mean they have to use the gun closet.
It’s easy to say that gun owners should be more responsible for their firearms; it’s another thing to make them responsible.
One other point I think I have to mention, I work in the adminstration are at a university in the UK. Students and lecturers are the most scatter-brained and unreliable group in the entire universe, bar none… I have to say I can’t think of a group of people I would less prefer to have armed.
There are also a lot of highly strung students and I have had to have many many arguments with them and I have been threatened in all sorts of ways because they can’t have their way. The idea that they might be carrying a gun is horrific in that sort of situation..
Jabba, thank you for your comments. You correctly point out issues regarding responsibility. The problem is, the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as stated by gun proponents doesn’t include responsibility. There are two parts to the 2nd - “well-regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed”. The two phrases don’t mesh well together and the emphasis is placed based on a political agenda from either side. It is a poorly written statement written almost 250 years ago for reasons that probably don’t exist any more. No one really believes that USG tyranny would be successfully resisted through hand guns and ad-hoc militias.
The question you pose seems to assume that the goal in the debate is to reduce the number of gun deaths. That isn’t necessarily so, and I doubt that most Americans would bother with the type of analysis you are talking about. The only thing that matters is what you “think” “believe” or “feel” and facts be damned.
I was robbed at gunpoint when I was 23. I was working at a video store at night. Guy came in and demanded the money in the register and my purse. I had $8 in my purse and there was about $90 in the register. I would simply never risk my life trying to shoot that guy over $98. I know people that would try to shoot him for less, and carry guns around with them all the time. I venture to say that if that were condoned and people started packing wherever they go, accidental deaths would increase as idiots rifling through their purses shoot themselves and those in line at the grocery store. That scares me much more than the random spree like Va Tech.
That said, I do believe that unless the 2nd is repealed, we should honor it to the letter. That is the reason I don’t favor restrictions on who can own guns. An ex-con that has paid his debt to society has just as much right to defend himself as anyone else. If, of course, that is really why people want to “keep and bear arms”.
This debate always reminds me of the line in The Terminator, when the gun shop owner says “any of these would be perfect for home defense” 2 seconds before Arnie blows him away ...
Flogg, you were right in correcting Jabba, but you are operating under some misconceptions. Accidental gun deaths are not really a problem. Look at the stats for accidental deaths occurring from mundane tasks (falling off of ladders, in the shower, choking on food, drowning in pools, etc)Accidental gunn deaths are miniscule and the reason being is that unlike your perception that any rube can get a gun, this is not the case. And it has been said many times here, getting CCW permits requires an exhaustive amount of training, so no, people are not going to shoot themselves reacing into their purse.
You were very fortunate in your robbery encounter. The amount of the take was immaterial, I know of several incidents were the robber routinely shot the clerks he was robbing, regardless of the take, just on principal, lessoning his chances of getting I.D.ed.
One other point I think I have to mention, I work in the adminstration are at a university in the UK. Students and lecturers are the most scatter-brained and unreliable group in the entire universe, bar none… I have to say I can’t think of a group of people I would less prefer to have armed.
But keep this in mind, almost all law enforcement agencies nowdays require college degrees, and promotions require advanced degrees, so there is a good chance that some of these students you speak of are police officers (armed) furthering their education.
I’ve had many of these discussions over the years. As far as I can tell, the position is summed up by realizing there are people who believe that without guns the basis for shooting people goes away. And, yes it does! IF all guns in the world are destroyed, IF NO guns are EVER manufactured again ANYWHERE in the world. Add to this the implicit belief that my removing all firearms and you remove the reason for killing people, you now have the basis for believing guns are the evil that lands in the hands of those who do harm with them.
What is never realized, or at least not admitted, is that there will always be someone (try the Chinese for example, who make new AK-47s and SOMEone sells them in Africa for about $10 to $20 bucks new) who is willing to manufacture and sell arms. Arms of all types.
And, of course, all one has to do is look at the countries where arms have been removed. Has murder stopped? Manslaughter stopped? NO! the WEAPONS have changed! Sticks, clubs, knives, poison. The weapons of choice. Murder doesn’t go out of style. Just the modus operandi changes.
And, with guns removed from the scene the weaker are almost inevitably put in a position of being the victim. No longer are the words of Sam Colt true: God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Thanks, rich. My point in the robbery story was that if I had tried to reach for a gun, my chances for getting shot would have escalated quite a bit. Given that the guy was quite calm and just wanted the money, heroics are stupid in that set of circumstances.
My other point was that if gun laws are relaxed to the point of any rube strolling into a pawn shop and purchasing one, accidental injuries and deaths would rise accordingly. This may or may not offset any successful attempts at self defense. Lee correctly asserts that two well-placed rounds could have reduced the body count, but conversely, two poorly-placed rounds in a room full of armed college kids could have resulted in a wild wild west style shootout ...
Two in the chest is a hell of a deterrent, isn’t it?
Unless you’re a liberal...then, you’ve just violated the killer’s civil rights.
Accidental gun deaths are not really a problem. Look at the stats for accidental deaths occurring from mundane tasks (falling off of ladders, in the shower, choking on food, drowning in pools, etc)
While I respect what you are saying about comparative death statistics, the problem is that there is no way around mundane tasks. However, you can reduce the amount of accidental deaths and thereby the amount of gun deaths overall. Of course, I’m not sure of the stats myself, which is part of the reason I’m posting the questions.
I’m not saying these things as an attack on guns or gun owners. In general I favour them. However, this is where a rational debate will lead. Until there is a rational way to overcome the point of accidental gun deaths, then there will be no rational end to the debate.
Incidentally, I was robbed twice when I worked at a gas station (in Toronto, ON) a few years ago. The first time the guy said he had guns, but never produced them. I gave him the money anyway. Even if I had a gun myself, I wouldn’t have used it unless seriously threatened. Hell, the robber was less intimidating than most my customers. The $250 he got was worth either of our lives, and he was on camera the whole time. The police arrested him a few weeks later. Really, it wasn’t a traumatizing experience.
I lived down the street from the gas station and one night when I was going home, I witnessed a guy get shot in front of my apartment. My room mate and I heard the shots, then saw 2 guys come running and start fighting in the street. 3 more shots and one guy went down while the other ran away. A bus driver was the first to give aid to the victim. A few minutes after the police arrived a guy came limping out from behind one of the buildings, he’d been shot in the leg by the crossfire.
When I moved to a smaller city, one of my neighbours tried to stab another neighbour one night. I was with the victim. And the stabber was on a bad combination of alcohol and anti-depressants. When the police came, he resisted arrest. Initially, 2 cops took him down and beat the shit out of him. They had him pinned and he kept fighting, they put 2 cans of pepper spray directly into his eyes and he kept fighting. It wasn’t till a dozen more cops showed up and they hog tied him that he stopped fighting. My neighbour and I were absolutely stunned.
Drudge is reporting that traffic deaths are becoming global scourge...you can have my hopped up 71 El Camino when you pry my cold, dead, hands from around the wheel.
I’m going to start pushing for “car free zones”. Think about the children!
My other point was that if gun laws are relaxed to the point of any rube strolling into a pawn shop and purchasing one, accidental injuries and deaths would rise accordingly. This may or may not offset any successful attempts at self defense. Lee correctly asserts that two well-placed rounds could have reduced the body count, but conversely, two poorly-placed rounds in a room full of armed college kids could have resulted in a wild wild west style shootout ...
I don’t think anybody is advocating “relaxing” the existing gun laws.
The glaring deficiency in the system is that Cho, who was declared a danger to himself and unstable by the court, could get a gun in the first place so I see a “tightening” of the system as necessary.
Your comment about a wild west shootout is unrealistic. Granted, we can only speculate, but given that he shot most of these people execution style, I would bet that one person firing a return shot at him, even if it missed, would of interupted the massacre causing him to flee since at their core they are cowards themselves.
While I respect what you are saying about comparative death statistics, the problem is that there is no way around mundane tasks. However, you can reduce the amount of accidental deaths and thereby the amount of gun deaths overall. Of course, I’m not sure of the stats myself, which is part of the reason I’m posting the questions.
Good questions, and I respect the fact that you used the word “rational” because this is usually whats missing in a debate like this, but, how do we reduce the amount of accidental deaths caused by guns, given that it is miniscule compared to deaths caused by mundane tasks. If you are genuinely concerned about reducing deaths maybe we should require safety harnesses in showers, madate all food prepared be put in a blender prior consumption, and, oh hell, lets just make everybody ride bikes and outlaws cars since they cause a thousand times more deaths then guns. Yes, I am being facitious but we can’t live in a bubble, life has risks.
Next entry: Liviu Librescu, RIP
Previous entry: Dickhead D'Souza
This guy just doesn’t WANT to get it.