One Year After the Giffords Shooting the Pro-Gun Folks are Still Whistling in the Dark

[mikeb302000]

Mercury News published an article pointing out the sad truth that in spite of the level of preventable gun violence, we're unlikely to see stricter gun control. That may or may not be true, I happen to think we're fast approaching a saturation point, beyond which the average apathetic citizen will begin to get interested.

Realizing this possibility, many gun-rights folks continue whistling in the dark.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, said that Congress should instead loosen existing gun-control laws to make it easier for citizens to defend themselves with firearms.

They 'miss the point'

"I think the vigils completely miss the point because they're assuming that more gun-control laws will lead to fewer crimes, but we find that the opposite is true," he said. "The more gun-control laws you have, the easier it is for criminals to commit crimes." [/1]

The reason this is nothing more than wishful thinking has been proven over and over again in the mass shootings. Take the most famous of 2011, the Giffords shooting which took place one year ago. Armed concealed carry permit holders were unable to intervene.

Since Christmas we've had a terrible spate of multiple murders. There was the roller rink shooting in Detroit, 5 people shot, the restaurant shooting in Chicago, 2 dead, 5 wounded, and perhaps the most well-known, the Texas Santa Claus shooting, to name just three.

These, and the dozens of others that have taken place over the holiday period as well as the hundreds we've suffered since Jared Loughner became a household name, all have one thing in common: no intervention on the part of an armed citizen. Yet, the pro-gun fanatics keep saying, "The more gun-control laws you have, the easier it is for criminals to commit crimes." This is what I call whistling in the dark.

Their other justification for more guns is even more foolish. Does anyone really believe the number of truly legitimate DGUs which have happened over the last year and which have resulted in the saving of life, outnumbers the death and destruction of all those shootings? I don't think so and I don't think any reasonable person can support such a position.


(cross posted at Mikeb302000)
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[petronius]

1. 'Whistling in the Dark' is a great song!

Thank you for reminding me of it...

On edit: Wow, trippy! All I did was paste the link, and the video get embedded? DU3 rocks...

[SteveW]

14. I'm Old School. I prefer doin' past a graveyard. nt

[ellisonz]

2. That would require admitting that...

...there's a problem in the first place that can be productively addressed. I am still unconvinced by the idea that somehow "liberty" is lost by having effective gun control.

"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."

[Starboard Tack]

3. What about the liberty to shoot bad people that carrying a gun provides?

What about the equalizing effect of being able to shoot an antagonist who is bigger and stronger than you? What about being able to shoot the thugs who steal? Don't you know the most important freedom in America is to be able to carry a gun so you can shoot people if and when necessary? Why would you want to control that? That's why we kicked the English out, so we wouldn't end up like them. Bunch of wusses don't even carry guns. They think they're tough, kicking and punching and stabbing each other, but that's not an efficient way to kill people.
Jeez Ellisonz, get with the program, will ya!

[ellisonz]

4. I drink black coffee, not tea...

I will not get with the program. The program can get with me...I believe in bullet control. If a bullet cost $5,000 dollars you'd mean that shit, you'd be at the hospital trying to claim your property!

[Simo 1939_1940]

5. By all means, let's base public policy on what

comics have to say.

:-/

[Remmah2]

6. Where do you think comics get their material? nt

nt

[ellisonz]

21. It's called humor.

Did I really need the tag?

[Simo 1939_1940]

25. Yes. NT

[Union Scribe]

35. I saw a couple people on DU2 mean it

when they brought up that Rock bit. It's hard to take anything for granted on forums.

[ellisonz]

36. Why do you think they would subscribe to such an outlandish notion?

Is their hostility to the gun culture justified in any way?

[rrneck]

8. There's proof positive

you can't draw your own cartoons or write your own comedy material.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Priceless!

[Simo 1939_1940]

27. Couldn't agree more!

Inasmuch as "absolutely worthless" could be described as "priceless".

[Starboard Tack]

30. We all have different tastes.

Some even have a sense of humor.

[Simo 1939_1940]

39. See post #35

There have been those in the past who have suggested Rock's "proposal" with a completely straight face.

[Hoyt]

10. You guys are cracking me up. That's great.

[SteveW]

15. There isn't one. But you knew that, didn't you....?

The idea, Starboard, is to enable self-defense, a right all people have. You, however, seem to reduce the notion to some form of macho stuff:

"...so we wouldn't end up like them. Bunch of wusses don't even carry guns."

We know your "program:" The glancing moral condemnation of fellow progressives who believe in a strong Second Amendment.

Did you forget your sarcasimy thing?

[Starboard Tack]

32. "moral condemnation of fellow progressives who believe in a strong Second Amendment"

Did you forget your sarcasmy thing?
Progressive?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. In my experience, progressives are the most staunch defenders of civil rights.

[Starboard Tack]

37. I think you are confused in your interpretation of civil rights.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

RKBA is a Constitutional right and, as such, is essentially a political right, written in the Second Amendment, over 200 years ago, as a response to the political reality of the time.

There right to carry a concealed handgun, falls into none of the above. It is a discriminatory right, which is really a privilege accorded by various states, to those who qualify.

[ellisonz]

40. +1000

[rl6214]

20. You started off pretty good

until that thingy kicked in.

[Simo 1939_1940]

26. Showing your true (and not terribly pretty) colors here. NT

[rl6214]

19. still can't seem to figure out what "well regulated militia" really means

even though it's been settled for quite some time.

[ellisonz]

22. Thanks to Antonin Scalia! n/t

[PavePusher]

29. Huh. W.H.A.P. was right. n/t

[rl6214]

38. Still settled none the less

[TupperHappy]

31. But who holds the right?

"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."

That phrase seems familiar, wonder where I have seen it before?

Oh yes.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

And, related.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people .

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.


if the Founders had meant for gun ownership to be a "militia right", they would have said so. It would have been "right of the militia" or "right of the government".

[E6-B]

41. We're telling you but your not listening.

Your interpretation of 2nd Amendment has been found invalid by the Supreme Court.

We're also telling you that are liberty is lost, but your not listening. Gun control is fine for you since you got nothing to loose and everything you want to gain. We're telling you we are on the loosing end of liberty and your not listening.

[slackmaster]

7. Less control over peoples' choices and behavior does not mean "more guns"

Does anyone really believe the number of truly legitimate DGUs which have happened over the last year and which have resulted in the saving of life, outnumbers the death and destruction of all those shootings?

I think that's a bogus comparison. The number of "legitimate DGUs" is unknown and unknowable, and the actual number would vary widely depending on how one defines a defensive gun use. But the real flaw in that kind of reasoning is the implication that making it harder or impossible for people to use their guns defensively would result in less violent crime.

In a society that values liberty, absence of measurable harm from freedom of choice is sufficient justification for keeping that freedom.

[E6-B]

42. I saved my life with a gun.

I have had to use my handgun 2x in 10 years. Once to stop a car jacking and once to stop a wolf hybrid dog from tearing me to pieces.

[Hoyt]

9. I think you are right that we are rapidly approaching a "saturation point."

[SteveW]

16. Well, then "we are rapidly approaching a point" where no more saturation can take place. nt

[montanto]

24. lmfao

[aikoaiko]

28. Talk about whistling in the dark.

Go ahead. Keep believing that while the RKBA makes more gains.

[beevul]

11. My opinion is that you don't know the definition of "we".

"Since Christmas we've had a terrible spate of multiple murders. There was the roller rink shooting in Detroit, 5 people shot, the restaurant shooting in Chicago, 2 dead, 5 wounded, and perhaps the most well-known, the Texas Santa Claus shooting, to name just three."

Who is this "we" you are including yourself in?

To my knowledge, neither Detroit, nor Chicago, nor Texas, are anywhere near Italy.

"Whistling in the dark"?

How about "whistling on the other side of the ocean".

[Atypical Liberal]

12. What "level"? Oh you mean the *declining* level?

Mercury News published an article pointing out the sad truth that in spite of the level of preventable gun violence, we're unlikely to see stricter gun control.

Well, given that that "level" of preventable gun violence is at a decades-long low, continuing a decades-long trend, in spite of record numbers of firearms in circulation, I'm not sure why we would see stricter gun control.

Clearly, more guns does not equal more crime.

That may or may not be true, I happen to think we're fast approaching a saturation point, beyond which the average apathetic citizen will begin to get interested.

Ah, I see - "The Backlash Cometh" has been renamed the "saturation point".

No, sorry, it's not.

The reason this is nothing more than wishful thinking has been proven over and over again in the mass shootings. Take the most famous of 2011, the Giffords shooting which took place one year ago. Armed concealed carry permit holders were unable to intervene.

In fact, an armed concealed carry permit holder was exiting the nearby Safeway and was about to bring his weapon into action when the shooter was subdued by those around him engaging in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.

Since Christmas we've had a terrible spate of multiple murders. There was the roller rink shooting in Detroit, 5 people shot, the restaurant shooting in Chicago, 2 dead, 5 wounded, and perhaps the most well-known, the Texas Santa Claus shooting, to name just three.

All tragic anecdotes, to be sure, but they do not do anything to change the fact that violent crime is continuing its decades-long decline.

These, and the dozens of others that have taken place over the holiday period as well as the hundreds we've suffered since Jared Loughner became a household name, all have one thing in common: no intervention on the part of an armed citizen. Yet, the pro-gun fanatics keep saying, "The more gun-control laws you have, the easier it is for criminals to commit crimes." This is what I call whistling in the dark.

Their other justification for more guns is even more foolish. Does anyone really believe the number of truly legitimate DGUs which have happened over the last year and which have resulted in the saving of life, outnumbers the death and destruction of all those shootings? I don't think so and I don't think any reasonable person can support such a position.

Even if there were not a single legitimate defensive use of a concealed carry firearm, so what? Why are you trying to make a connection between the criminal use of firearms and the lawful carrying of firearms?

We know that people with concealed carry permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let along firearm-related crime. Even if these people never intervened to stop a violent attack, they still hardly ever cause problems so why not let them continue to carry?

[ileus]

17. The people finally have a taste of freedom, and we're not willing to give it up easily.

I remember growing up you had to either break the law or be law to carry a firearm to protect yourself and family. Now that's all changed...power is shifting back to the people. Hopefully we've learned the lessons of crushing the individuals rights and won't turn back to the misguided ways of the past.

[rl6214]

18. New year, same old shit

BS opinion pieces, blind links to your blog spamming the new DU3 and still wrong on everything your write:

"One Year After the Giffords Shooting the Pro-Gun Folks are Still Whistling in the Dark"


Should read One year after the Giffords shooting and the anti-gun folks are still whistling in the dark because they haven't gotten a single piece of legislation passed and more states are now allowing concealed carry.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. The most disingenious drivel you've posted yet.

Giffords wasn't able to defend herself with her gun (if she even had it on her, not known) because the announcement of hostilities was a bullet passing through her skull from an unknown assailant.

Having a firearm doesn't make you omniscient. You do have to SEE IT COMING to know there is a fight on.

The second confirmed CPL at the scene was inside the Safeway, and the shooting was over before he emerged from the building into view of the shooter.

"Armed concealed carry permit holders were unable to intervene."

Nor did they make the situation any worse. Had anyone been carrying closer to the shooting, events may have unfolded quite differently, though there would still have been at least some casualties, specifically, and at least, Giffords herself.