Posted by: coastcontact | December 22, 2013

Guns Are More Valuable then Lives

Despite Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Columbine, gun owner’s rights are more important than lives in America.  That fact is supported by the lack of control legislation from our congress.

School Shooting, Grayson RobinsonClaire Davis, 17, was in critical condition after being shot at point-blank range at Arapahoe High School on Dec. 13. She died Saturday afternoon.  The killer was 18 year old Karl Pierson.  He had legally purchased his shotgun at a local store a week before the shooting and bought the ammunition the day of the shooting. Anyone 18 and older is allowed to buy a shotgun in Colorado.

Colorado has a history of shooting incidents.
1999  Columbine High School in Columbine, an unincorporated area of Jefferson County – 13 people were killed
2006  Platte Canyon High School in Bailey – one person killed
2007  A 24-year-old man named Matthew Murray shot and killed four people in two different cities in Arvada and Colorado Springs.  The facilities included his church.
2012  Aurora at Century movie theater – Twelve people were killed
September 9, 2013  In the first recalls of state lawmakers in Colorado history, State Senate President John Morse and Senator Angela Giron were both removed from office Tuesday by voters upset with their stance on gun control.
December 13, 2013  Claire Davis, age 17 is killed by another student

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Thank you for your posting- I echo your concerns. On a daily basis I exchange comments with the ‘gun crazies’ in our country and its scary the way they think-

  2. Actually we protect our money in banks with guns. Saw an armored vehicle today with armed guards collecting money from large retail stores. Money is important enough to protect with guns. But kids, they are not important enough to protect with guns? We protect many politicians with guns, but not kids.

    I guess some people hate guns more than they love kids.

    lwk

  3. LWK has a WordPress blog all about guns and ammo. His solution is armed guards at every school, at every public place. It’s a solution that comes from the NRA. Soon we will have everyone armed as they shop at the mall. Something that they did in the Old West. Wait a minute, whether it was Dodge City or Tombstone, weren’t people required to surrender their weapons when they came into the town? Oh, I forgot, that was just in the movies. Or was it?

    • coastcontact wrote:

      “His solution is armed guards at every school, …

      And teachers who go to the trouble of qualifying for a concealed carry license being allowed to carry a concealed handgun at school. There is at least one school district in Texas where this has been done now for a couple years without incident.

      “…at every public place.”

      That is what is legal concealed carry. No idea here you live, but if you come to Texas and walk around in public there going to be a lot of people safely carrying a concealed handgun on their person – I am one of them. As the “shall issue” movement as gained momentum over the last couple decades this is becoming a reality in many places in the U.S. Even Illinois is bowing to the inevitable.

      Fact is people who get a concealed carry license are as safe as police in carrying handguns because the fact is they don’t get arrested any more often than police for a firearms violation. People in Texas screamed that blood would flow in the streets when concealed carry was enacted into law. Years of experience have proven their alarms to be totally false.

      “Soon we will have everyone armed as they shop at the mall.”

      Hopefully at least 10% or more carrying legally, yes. Would make our malls safer.

      In Washtington state last year I believe a gunman with an assault rifle came into a mall and killed a couple people. Gun jams and while he is fixing it he looks up and sees a person with a concealed carry license aiming at him with his gun. The guy chose not to shoot at that point because of people standing behding the killer. But the killer retreated and eventually killed himself as police arrived. A good guy with a gun saved a lot of lives that day.

      “Something that they did in the Old West. Wait a minute, whether it was Dodge City or Tombstone, weren’t people required to surrender their weapons when they came into the town? Oh, I forgot, that was just in the movies. Or was it?”

      Some towns in the West required it. But the fact is the “Wild West” was a lot safer than many of our cities today and people had lots of guns.

      National average homicide rate U.S. is 4.7 per 100K. Compare to these cities, many of which have had gun control and Democrats in charge for generations:

      New Orleans 62.1
      Detroit 35.9
      Baltimore 29.7
      Newark 25.4
      Miami 23.7
      Washington D.C. 19.0
      Atlanta 17.2
      Cleveland 17.4
      Buffalo 16.5
      Houston 12.9
      Chicago 11.6

      regards,

      lwk

    • And would you rather we did nothing to guard schools and shopping malls?

  4. Access to guns has not made us safer. Canada, UK, and Australia have significantly tighter gun control and significantly less homicides. That is what I want.

    • Nazi Germany just before the start of WWII had draconian gun control laws and very low homicides (other than those by state agents). Is that what you want too?

      lwk

      • In other words every nation that limits the availability of fire arms will ultimately become a dictatorship. Do you really believe this? You are suggesting that the democratic nations of the world will ultimately become lead by mad dictators. The second amendment was written when fire arms only had the ability to shoot one lead ball; it was called a musket. They did not foresee the weapons of the 21st century. Sandy Hook, the death of Trayvon Martin and the 19-year-old Detroit woman who was shot and killed on the front porch of a home while looking for help are reasons enough to increase gun control.

  5. coastcontact wrote:

    “In other words every nation that limits the availability of fire arms will ultimately become a dictatorship.”

    There are a few facts you might find inconvenient to your world view. In the 20th century millions of people were killed by their governments after they were disarmed. Millions were killed in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, and a multitude of lesser genocides – all facilitated by first disarming the victims.

    I don’t know that disarming a population will lead to a dictatorship. But history should teach us that it is a precondition, and that it puts too much temptation in the hands of government when it becomes all powerful. That is precisely why the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment. That is not debatable by any rational student of history who has read the Federalist Papers.

    “You are suggesting that the democratic nations of the world will ultimately become lead by mad dictators.”

    Was Germanya democracy before Hitler? You have never heard that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”?

    “The second amendment was written when fire arms only had the ability to shoot one lead ball;”

    Firearms have changed since the 18th century. Human nature has not. The Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment as a protection against the inherent evils of human nature.

    “…the death of Trayvon Martin…”

    Just for the record Trayvon was a wannabe hip-hop thug who was justifiably killed in self defense. That is what the jury said and they saw the evidence. That is an example of exactly why law abiding citizens _do_ need guns.

    “…are reasons enough to increase gun control.”

    Nope. We will always have tragedies and accidents with dangerous things because some human beings are either evil or careless. But the good that guns do far outweighs the bad.

    Americans use a firearm up to 2.5 million times a year in self defense and upwards of 400,000 lives are saved with guns in the hands of private citizens.

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
Guns and Violence Symposium,
vol. 86, no. 1, 1995: 150.

    ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN
    Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz
    http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

    lwk

  6. aegissilver wrote:

    “…if the person attacking you doesn’t have a gun, then you would have no need to use yours against them.”

    Not so. A large person, a person on certain drugs, a person who is psychotic can kill you without a gun. You have every right to defend yourself against physical violence that could do serious bodily harm (or to defend another person in the same circumstance). This is clearly taught in the Texas concealed carry course as being the state law on when deadly force can be used. The other person doesn’t have to be armed at all. They have to present a threat of death or serious bodily harm that a “reasonable person” see the same way. “Reasonable person” is mythical entity in law, but the idea is obviously to help rule out someone who is paranoid and sees trivial threats as life threatening. Not perfect, but nothing is.

    For example, Trayvon Martin was attacking George Zimmerman with a deadly weapon, although he had no gun. That deadly weapon was the concrete sidewalk into which he was attempting to bash Zimmerman’s head which would have rendered Zimmerman unconscious and could have killed him.

    The reason a handgun is such a good weapon for defense is that it renders a small, weak, or disabled person able to defend against the large and the strong. That is why it is sometimes calld an “equalizer.”

    So no, you are dead wrong on that score, and if people believed it then a lot of victims could end up being dead too.

    “Before I respond to this, I’d like to hear what your definition of a “lives saved by firearm” is.”

    Kleck and Gertz tried to get an estimate through their survey of how many people who actually used a gun in self defense thought that if they had not had a gun they might have been killed or seriously injured. No one is saying that it is an absolutely correct number – no one really knows for sure. If you read the paper I referenced you might come to appreciate just how difficult it is to determine self defense uses and lives saved.

    It is trying to figure what might have happened. It is not as definite a science as the law of gravity but right now it is the best way to come up with a “real world” estimate that we have. Kleck as suggested many times that he would like to do a much larger survey and try ti refine the survey. But I guess the government is more interested in funding research that shows guns are not useful.

    regards,

    lwk


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: