The new face of gun control
Handgun Control Incorporated The Brady Campaign’s newest mascot was on Oprah recently flogging the anti-gun message. When you hear him speak, remember that Colin was disarmed and helpless by Virginia State policy. He was under 21, so a concealed carry license was unavailable to him, and even if he had been old enough, Virginia Tech policy would have subjected him to expulsion had he exercised his right to carry. Colin tries to say that the situation was too chaotic for him or anyone else to have used a gun to stop the rampage. Really?
So all of these actions were taken, and many more besides, but the simple action of pulling out a gun and putting a few rounds into someone was too much to hope for? Even a few rounds toward the criminal would have slowed him down enough to allow more people to get out of windows to safety.
Colin will forever remember laying on the floor of that classroom, helpless to defend himself from a rampaging maniac. He wants to make sure that you don’t have a gun. Since he knows how it feels to be helpless, how can he justify making sure that you are helpless too?
* - All references from Wikipedia have had the perpetrator’s name changed to “XXX” in accordance with my policy against giving publicity to criminals
When someone shoots back towards a spree shooter, the spree is over, with no more unarmed victims getting shot. I have been unable to find a single exception to this. It isn't always the defender's bullet that ends the spree--sometimes the shooter suicides, sometimes he surrenders.
ReplyDeleteSpree shootings are at least disproportionately common in 'no guns' areas--in fact, the overwhelming majority occur where guns are not allowed, despite those areas being a minority of public places.
Spree shootings are uncommon enough that we should not make large changes in policy based on them--but if we do, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of expanding concealed carry rather than increasing restrictions on guns.
Surviving an undeniably tragic and horrific attack does not automatically make one immune from criticism, nor does it make everything he has to say on the topic automatically and intrinsically correct or accurate.
ReplyDeleteThe amusing thing is that Japete whimsically disregarded Suzanna Hupp's testimony and statements regarding the shooting she witnessed and survived, but Japete was all too willing to buy into the anti-rights gos-se Colin is spreading.
Why are anti-rights nuts so inconsistent?
In the end, both Colin and Joan Peterson are seeking to aid and abet the same kind of criminals and disgusting people as the one who perpetrated the murders at Virginia Tech - for someone who actually lived through that kind of thing, such behavior is borderline unconscionable.
While I'd like to give credit, I don't recall where I read the following (paraphrased) idea from: People who have been a victim of an act of violence, either directly by being personally affected, or indirectly by being close to someone personally affected, should not be taken seriously in the debate that results from the act of violence in question.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is that when someone has been injured, or a loved one has been injured or killed, by a drunk driver, an armed robber, an "unsafe" product, etc., they're less likely to be able to make impartial, reasoned, statements about the topic. As this guy, and japete, and others show time and again, their fear and grief overwhelms them, and all they can do is see the harm done to themselves. The idea that the "solutions" they seek to prevent such an event from occurring again are fascist will NOT matter to them. They know that what they want is for your own good, so you won't have to go through what they went through. Any resistance to their desires are perceived by them as evil.
Their minds are closed. Closed minds should not be part of public discourse. There can be no reasoning or compromise with a closed mind. They will not stop their drive to impose their will. Any compromise made today will become tomorrow's starting point in their drive to impose their will on society.
Colin didn't mention the January 2006 legislation...
ReplyDeleteJanuary 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572, was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university opposed the bill, which quickly died in subcommittee. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus
ALSO he didn't mention the ...
August 21, 2006 Incident, about which an article was in the school paper on August 31, 2006 http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510
He only mentions the April 16, 2007 incident, which emphasizes the failures of acting in 2006.