|
|
By Stephen, on January 16th, 2011%
Plenty of others have commented on Joe Zamudio, who ran TOWARDS the gunfire with weapon ready when Jared Loughner opened fire on Rep. Giffords’ meeting. We on the pro-gun side honor his courage for running toward the violence. Those on the anti-gun side consider him one of the dangers of the day, being he didn’t kill the bad guy (anti-gun people care only about body count) and as he surveyed the situation he initially targeted an innocent man helping to disarm Loughner. Did Zamudio’s legally carried firearm save the day? No. Did it empower another civilian to run to the aid of those fighting Loughner instead of fleeing the gunfire as other unarmed civilians did? Hell yeah! If Loughner had succeeded in his reload and eluded those that tackled him, was his shooting rampage over once Zamudio appeared? Probably. The bottom line … the gun Zamudio carried was nothing but good. And if you’re ever in such a situation where gunfire breaks out and no police are around … you’d better hope there is a Zamudio in the area.
The facts of what happened in Tucson challenge two constantly repeated tenets of the opposing sides of the gun debate; the pro-gunners argument . . . → Read More: Joe Zamudio, the legal CCWer who intervened in the Tucson massacre
By Stephen, on January 15th, 2011%
There’s no American who cares about their country that doesn’t feel pain when one of our representatives is gunned down. And political stance and political party don’t matter; when someone attacks an elected leader, they attack us all. And because of this I agree that an attack on a leader can require more action than another citizen. i.e. when President Clinton bombed Iraq after the alleged assassination plot against ex-president Bush in Kuwait, it was probably not an action he would take if an average citizen were targeted — and was not something we would expect of him.
According to Brady Campaign Vice President Dennis Henigan on Countdown with Keith Olberman Friday night (actually moderated by Chris Hayes) … apparently pro-gun congress people may be ready to change their positions on gun control and decide the laws they’ve rejected in the past, because they haven’t work anywhere else, are suddenly worthwhile after lunatic Jared Loughner’s Tucson murder spree. But the sad fact is …
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was hit by the FIRST round, not the last. So the brutal and tragic bottom line is … to whatever extent lower capacity mags might have helped in this assault (and I think that is questionable) . . . → Read More: A quick note to legislators …
By Stephen, on January 13th, 2011%
I’ve used this blog to review mass murders and the standard list of gun controls anti-gun groups trot out as a “response” even though they would have no effect. Such as using the VTI massacre to end guns shows and pass nationwide one-gun-a-month, though the guns were NOT bought at a gun show and Virginia already HAD one-gun-a-month. But this time they seem to be targeting only a restriction on magazines that hold over 10 rounds. And it is NOT illogical to say that if Loughner had had a lower capacity magazine he might have been tackled earlier and shot less people. But since in a free society (which anti-gun people don’t seem to understand anyway) the burden of proof is on a laws’ advocates to prove that it is necessary to restrict anything, much less a constitutionally protected right … I don’t think they can meet that burden. There are two many variables and facts they ignore.
And just a note on the ongoing problems in logic of anti-gun groups … for the VTI massacre they vehemently claim that even though the victims had time to bar doors while the gunman roamed around, help people climb out windows, and there was . . . → Read More: Did a large capacity magazine (30 round “clip”) empower Jared Loughner to murder more people?
By Stephen, on January 13th, 2011%
I actually first posted this almost two years ago, but I think it’s apropos now as we see the anti-gun groups mounting a campaign to remedy the violence of an insane man with legal restrictions on all 300 million Americans. In this shooting there were armed citizens nearby, and one did come in to help, but given the nature of the attack the shooter was already on the ground so firing at him wasn’t necessary. There also is at least a legitimate argument to be made in this case that the capacity of the shooter’s firearm did empower him to shoot more than if he had a lower capacity magazine … but I’ll deal with that specific issue shortly. In the meantime, here is a general critique of the reaction of the anti-gun groups and their outlook:
Josh Sugarman, who blames all the violence in America on the NRA, published Yet Another Mass Shooting, at the Washington Post, a fill-in-the-blank article for lazy reporters who don’t want to do real research or unbiased reporting (Washpo is a probably a prime candidate to use this for gun related stories). But I believe a few corrections are in order. I’ve made those corrections marked . . . → Read More: A fill in the blank article on mass shootings (repost)
By Stephen, on January 10th, 2011%
Brady Board member Joan Peterson, blogging as Japete, makes her second post within a day and a half of the murderous assault by probable psychopath Jared Loughner. The anti-gun groups jumped on this incident of political violence with exuberance, undoubtedly hoping for the kind of success they attained after other political assassinations (from Kennedy to Reagan, though none of those laws affected this assault). And honestly … I don’t blame them. At their core are people who truly believe that all violence is due to guns and that without them violent people would be harmless (which is not actually supported by history, recent or otherwise) and so it’s natural that they assume that every violent incident will suddenly “open the eyes” of Americans to agree with their version of “common sense” (though it may be anything but).
But a reading of Japete’s post and opinion gives a window to the reasoning the anti-gun groups are using to try and take away a constitutionally protected right, personal empowerment, and cultural tradition … but contrary to what they say their views are not logical, not in our best interests as a nation, and not really common sense at all.
I do realize that Ms. Peterson . . . → Read More: Anti-gunner’s view of the Tucson mass murder and assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
By Stephen, on January 9th, 2011%
A lot of the stuff I read from the Left about Jared Loughner’s mass murder and assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson is intent on using this horrible event as a political opportunity to attack conservatives (the TEA party) and the pundits they follow. Where is the logic of attacking the new conservative movement in America based on the murderous actions of an anarchist who likes Karl Marx? (as well as about any other whacky idea — he was a headcase for sure).
As I said in my earlier post … we could not make a bigger mistake; to let the actions of this insane murderer affect our freedom or even our political views would be like allowing our country to be frightened into becoming a police state after 9-11. To live in a free society takes courage, and let’s hope this is still the land of the free and the home of the brave (the former requires the latter, and the latter will always obtain the former). Even if we have to share it with a few psychotic mass murderers.
But what is the logic of the left on this? Even if we assume Loughner in some way represented the . . . → Read More: The assault on our liberties that began in Tucson with one targeted Congresswoman … now targets us all
By Stephen, on January 9th, 2011%
The left has been trying to focus blame for Jared Loughner’s mass murder and assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on the TEA Party and the talk radio/cable TV pundits who are related to it. Wow. Normally it’s just anti 2nd amendment groups that jump on a murder to try and limit a right, now it’s those who would limit freedom of speech for political reasons.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been accused of being on the forefront of this effort for some of his remarks. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s speaking out of pain and anger, as Ms. Giffords was a personal friend of his, and I’m sure he is reeling from what happened in his own backyard. But there are certainly those who are using this situation for political gains. And they are using his words.
Mr. Dupnik said a lot of things, but at the heart of them is what he calls the “vitriol” coming from television and radio:
Let me say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that,” the . . . → Read More: Did Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin convince Jared Loughner to murder Rep. Giffords?
By Stephen, on January 9th, 2011%
Joan Peterson has a blog post on the mass murder and attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords in Tucson. To her credit she doesn’t openly ask for any specific new gun restrictions, but asks that we “…have a national discussion about the role of guns and violence in our country. We are not a third world country where politicians are shot at or threatened on a regular basis.” And of course that last sentence is particularly true, we are NOT a country where politicians are shot or threatened on a regular basis … what happened is thankfully very uncommon.
Now I recognize that when she says national discussion she wants a discussion that involves what kinds of gun control to enact, assuming that some will be enacted, but I don’t make that assumption myself. I’m not against talking about the role of guns and violence in our country because I’m a believer in gun ownership and the right to self defense by all Americans, and I have no problem defending gun ownership even in times like these. To me is just a fact that guns are only one tool used by the violent, and not a motivator or creator of the . . . → Read More: Should the response to a horrendous murder, whatever the motivation, be to give up a precious right?
By Stephen, on January 8th, 2011%
I’ve been watching the coverage on the shooting and possible assassination of Democrat Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (fate is unclear on the news at this moment — others are definitely dead) and it just makes me sick. She was doing something important and critical to the American political system, out meeting people in an uncontrolled environment, and some crazy bastard took advantage of her availability to kill her.
As Rep. Trent Franks just said on MSNBC … “one of the wonderful things about this constitutional republic that we have, is that we settle our differences by ballots and not bullets.” And indeed we do. While the 2nd amendment is, and should be, a political balance to the power of government … a functional and legitimately elected government, whether we like the policies of it or not, is what the 2nd amendment DEFENDS, not what we are armed against. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT to deal with specific people we don’t like who have been elected and it’s not to get revenge for measures elected officials pass, even if we feel as though they’re doing damage to the country and the future. Because those people were elected, and the . . . → Read More: Rep Gabrielle Giffords shot, possibly killed … makes me sick
By Stephen, on January 5th, 2010%
Snowflakes in Hell has this story from the Washington Times, the one that the anti-gun groups claim never happens/never can happen. The story of an armed citizen in Oklahoma stopping a man bent on murder, probably multiple murders.
I wonder how many other stories there are just like this that we never hear about. Admittedly, though, it’s hard to prove an alternate history from what actually happened. i.e. in the New Life Church in Colorado Springs mass shooting, how many victims did the armed citizen save? Not all of them, certainly, but logically some, and more than would be saved if she were not armed. How many victims did this citizen in Oklahoma save with his legally carried firearm? We can never know. Maybe a lot, maybe none. But if I was standing in that parking lot with my kids when the young Marine produced his firearm and started randomly shooting I’d be damned glad there was someone to stop him.
On the other hand, how many citizens did laws against concealed carry or armed civilians save at VTI, NIU, Binghamton NY, Columbine, etc.? Given facts like these, how is it the anti-gun groups continue to use these instances as being reasons to . . . → Read More: An armed citizen stopping a mass killer — odd that the news services missed this
|
If you like the blog, give my book a try.
Off Road
The best book ever written!
Well ... at least by me.
Follow me with Google Friend Finder!
The Second Amendment Foundation – preserving the rights of us all!
|
