Blog: Good Guns Can Kill Bad People

Blog: Good Guns Can Kill Bad People.

Russ Vaughn

afreepeopleThe progressives hadn’t let the blood dry on the classroom floor in Newton, CT before they were using the deaths of all those children to leverage their cause of gun control. Had conservative broadcasters attempted to exploit such human suffering, they’d be roundly denounced as soulless ghouls and rightly so. When I first read online of the killings, I just shook my head in sadness then immediately steeled myself for what I knew was coming from the hysterical lefties. They did not disappoint although, I must confess to a certain despair that Mayor Bloomberg has become such a predictable old scold. Can we not somehow sue this turkey for calling himself a Republican?

Another horrific mass murder and if we could not predict its timing we could predict its site within certain parameters. With predictable regularity, the most lethal of these types of attacks take place in public venues such as shopping malls, restaurants, theaters, with the deadliest frequently being institutions of learning. We are all familiar with the Columbine High School killings in which 12 students and a single teacher died or the Virginia Tech massacre where 32 people died. Fewer remember the 2006 killing of five Amish schoolgirls by a milk truck driver or the Jonesboro, AR school shooting in which five died, gunned down by fellow students. How many remember the memorable name of Kip Kinkel, an Oregon high school student who murdered his parents and two students in 1998?  Or what about that Red Lake, MN mass killing where nine died in 2005? Of course everyone remembers the Aurora, CO theater shooting, but what about the 2007 Arvada, CO school shooting that left five dead?

The point I’m attempting to make here is that these tragedies recur with an irregular chronological predictability, but with a largely predictable targeted area, school campuses, be they elementary as with this latest tragedy, or high school as at Columbine, or university as with Virginia Tech. Other than their educational bond, they all share another commonality, the one which most likely leads to their selection by the perpetrators as the scenes for their slaughters: they are all sites where the presence of firearms is strictly prohibited and enforced with zero tolerance. There is no one to shoot back and thus deter the shooter from his maddened mission. Think about it, most of these mass shootings end with the suicide of the killer after he has accomplished his goal. Few are ever killed by authorities or captured.

bantoolsThese killers control the events because they have picked the setting where that is most easily accomplished, where they can inflict the most pain and death in a very brief period of time before an armed response can be mounted. We hear them called cowards for killing the helpless. I believe they are more viciously cunning than cowardly, picking a target so vulnerable as to permit them to accomplish their goal of creating as much mayhem and death as possible in the shortest period of time.

It’s a cliché to say there’s never been one of these mass shootings at a gun show, but it’s a cliché birthed in truth. How about at a shooting range where a madman could walk in fully armed with total impunity, unquestioned, with multiple lethal weapons and begin firing? His entrée would be easy. Problem is, so would his predictably rapid departure. How about gun shops or sporting goods stores where guns and ammunition are sold and in plentiful supply, filled with shoppers who have a much likelier chance of carrying concealed, unlike a mall theater or food court? Ask yourselves, when was the last mass shooting at a rodeo or a NASCAR race?

Ponder that for a while, those of you liberals who equate the presence and availability of guns with criminal shootings. The truth operates in the obverse: it is precisely where there are the most guns and people who know how to use them where the massacres do not occur. And it is precisely where guns are not present where these slaughters do take place. That is no accident; rather it is a demonstration of the awareness of mass killers as to where it will be most expedient for them to attack, where they will have the most time to conduct their slaughter.

atf-convince-store1Some may try to prove me wrong by pointing out the Fort Hood shooting but that argument is easily refuted. As a general rule, soldiers on US military bases are not allowed to carry firearms, so the shooting took place at a de facto gun free zone, the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a medical processing facility. Like all these other shooters, the cowardly physician who forsook his medical oath knew quite well he was targeting a place where no armed opposition would be present.

Those who are so angry, frustrated and fed up with the futility of their lives that they have no desire to continue living have multiple ways of dealing with their problems. Fortunately, most finally accept that they must have external help and seek it, continuing to live. Others refuse that option and take their lives themselves. A few, perhaps more angry than most, go out in in flash of angry defiance, what we call death by cop. Tragically, we always have the few whose warped reasoning and boiling anger leads them to believe they must go out of this world on a stream of innocent blood from a place where the very lack of guns guarantees the fulfillment of their horrific madness.

If you liberals want to assign morality to firearms, consider: As any combat infantryman, and I am one, can tell you, guns don’t kill people; good people with good guns do kill bad people. Unfortunately, bad people with bad guns kill good people unless they are stopped by those good people with good guns. When defensive guns are known to be in the target area, such as schools, the massacre-minded madman will have second thoughts about his target selection, perhaps sending him to a gun range or a gun show to perpetrate his madness.A0cohaHCQAAztNM.jpg large

 

MILLER: Dispelling gun myths – Washington Times

MILLER: Dispelling gun myths – Washington Times.

Perpetuating untruths about firearms with the Colorado tragedy

There is evil in the world, and the face of it was seen Monday when James Holmes made his first court appearance since he allegedly killed 12 innocent people at a showing of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo. As he sat with demonic-looking dyed-orange hair and bizarre facial expressions, it was hard to conceive of any law that could thwart such a maniac intent on mass murder.

That hasn’t stopped those on the left from seizing this tragedy to call for more gun-control laws. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, author of the expired assault-weapons ban, said on Fox News Sunday that firearms like the AR-15 the Colorado shooter used are “weapons of war” that “are only going to be used to kill people in close combat. That’s the purpose of that weapon.”

Though it is one of the most popular rifles sold to civilians, the AR-15 is rarely used in crimes, presumably because it’s not readily concealed. The most recent FBI figures show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. By comparison, 745 people were beaten to death with only hands that year, but no one has called for outlawing fists.

Mrs. Feinstein joins notorious gun-grabbers like New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in seeking to vilify guns based on their appearance, not their performance. The AR-15 series was designed to look like the military’s M-16, but it is semi-automatic. That means it fires only one round when the trigger is pulled, and that round is no more powerful than any shot by an ordinary hunting rifle.

The left applies the scary term “assault weapons” to play on emotional responses, but it isn’t working anymore. More Americans oppose banning so-called “assault rifles” (53 percent) than favor it (43 percent), according to a Gallup poll from October 2011. The poll also showed the lowest level of support for new gun laws in history.

In other words, the public has realized those laws don’t work. Gun-free zones, like the Aurora movie theater, leave criminals armed and unchallenged. Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin pointed out on Fox News Sunday that if “a responsible individual had been carrying a weapon, maybe — maybe — they could have prevented the death and injuries.”

This is what happened in another Aurora shooting in April. A gunman opened fire at a church, killing the pastor’s mother. An off-duty police officer who was attending the service stopped further rampage by fatally shooting the killer.

It is natural to look for easy solutions to this problem, but the unpleasant truth is a free society can’t do much when it comes to this kind of evil. “Even if you didn’t have access to guns, this guy was diabolical,” said Colorado’s Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “He would have found explosives. He would have found something else — some sort of poisonous gas. He would have done something to create this horror.” The public is not well served by those who would use half-truths to take away our Second Amendment rights.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

The Devil’s bargain

The Devil’s bargain

USA Today had an editorial about the Aurora shooting, where it referred to the Second Amendment as the “devil’s bargain.”

 There is a devil’s bargain, but it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.  What is it?

  

The devil’s bargain is listening to liberals and allowing them to make any decisions for our government.  Let’s put it in terms the left understands.  “Liberals lied, people died.”

 

Liberals have a set formula they work every time and we let them get away with it every time.

  

The formula is the left picks a target, something that works that they do not like.  They start causing as many problems as they can to keep the system from working right, then declare the system broken and the only solution is their bad idea.

  

In 1996, Congress passed the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.  The idea was to make the death penalty more effective and faster.  The federal government decided it would throw billions of dollars into training so that death penalty convictions would not be set aside due to ineffective lawyers and convicted criminals would not spend 20 years on death row before execution.

  

All the law did was gum up the works even more.  Now, sixteen years later, dozens of convictions and death sentences are thrown out every year because of “ineffective assistance of counsel.”  Defendants now spend even longer on death row.  With the possible exception of Texas, condemned criminals are more likely to die of old age and natural causes than have a date with the executioner’s needle.

  

Now, the same liberals who have totally screwed up the criminal justice system are announcing it is irrevocably broken and the only solution is what they wanted from the beginning, namely the abolition of the death penalty.

 

In an editorial today, the brain donors on the editorial staff of USA Today called the Second Amendment a “devil’s bargain.”  They wailed, “It’s a devil’s bargain that allows millions of law-abiding people to own and use guns responsibly, while accepting thousands of deliberate and accidental shootings a year, including the sort of perverse tragedy that occurred in Colorado.”

 No, the devil’s bargain is listening to liberals, like the editorial staff of USA Today.

 

None of the mainstream media pointed out some salient facts.  Aurora Colorado has strict gun control laws.  The movie theater told its patrons that it was a gun free zone.

 The simple truth is, because liberals had successfully barred guns from that movie theater, the shooter had a target rich environment with no real threats.

 

Had there been one or two armed citizens in the audience, the story would have been different.

 

Liberals have been desperate to disprove the obvious.  The obvious is that had people in the movie theater been able to shoot back, the death toll would not have been so high.

 

The liberal media reached out to some liberal big city police chiefs who parroted the party line back that armed citizens would not have helped.

 

When you get away from the guys who spent their careers in air-conditioned offices, schmoozing their way to the top and talk to the cops who are on the street, another story emerges.

 

I interviewed several current or former police officers for a blog and they all said the same thing.  One or more armed citizens would have made a difference.  Would they have killed the shooter?  Probably not, though that would have been a possible outcome.  At the least, since he was not a trained shooter, it would have been a distraction.  Could they have wounded him or pinned him down and allowed more people to escape?  That is an almost certainty.

 

Liberalism is a fact free zone.  John Adams said facts are hard things and liberals never like to be confused with facts.  Liberals believe things always are as they should be, never as they actually are.

 

Gun control has been tried.  It has failed.  Look at major American cities with restrictive gun control laws.  They are free fire zones for criminals.   Look at both Australia and the UK where gun ownership has been banned.  Violent crime is through the roof because criminals know victims are defenseless.

 

Look at two nations where just the opposite is true, Switzerland and Israel.  In both nations, most adults have military issued firearms.   They do not have mass shootings.  Israel has terrorist attacks but the preferred method of terrorist attack is the homicide bomber, not the shooter.

 

The one constant all of these mass shooting have is they took place in venues where the shooter knew the victims would be unarmed.

 

Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1764, when he said, “”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

  

The answer is not gun control.  We get those calls every time we have one of these incidents. 

 

The answer is an armed, trained and self-reliant citizenry.

 

Editorial Note:  I refuse to identify the Aurora shooter by name.  He should not be glorified or even get his 15 minutes of fame.  It is the victims of the Aurora shooting that should be remembered, not this criminal.