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

[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?