Monday, January 9, 2012

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

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."
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.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. When you cite an article, you ought to read the whole thing:

    "John Waterman, who served as president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, warned in 2010 that the change was "an invitation to disaster," putting both rangers and the public at increased risk.

    But this week, Waterman, now the group's past president and a park ranger in Pennsylvania, said he doubted that the law would have made any difference in preventing Anderson's death.

    "The law itself is totally unrelated to the slaughter of Ranger Margaret Anderson by a disturbed man," he said. "They're two separate incidents. .... Whether you said guns are allowed or not, it wouldn't have mattered. He would have had them anyway. I don't think he would have read the sign and said, 'Oh, I'm not supposed to have a gun.' "

    Velleco said the Washington state shooting "just proves the point that we need to allow the law-abiding citizen to have the ability to defend themselves," particularly in remote national parks where help can be hundreds of miles away."

    Did you see that? The former president of the park rangers' association stated exactly what we've said many times. The change in the law regarding loaded guns in national parks meant nothing to the particular wacko in this case. If we're whistling in the dark, you're pissing into the wind.

  2. Was I talking about the national park shooting? I limited my examples to MULTIPLE murders with a special emphasis on Tucson a year ago.

    Why are the self-appointed vigilantes or the self-defense guys never able to intervene. That's the question.

  3. Mikeb302000,

    Many of these attacks happen in "gun-free zones." People who obey the laws aren't allowed to have guns. Criminals don't let laws deter them.

  4. Talk about dancing in the blood of the victims, Greg. You guys can't get enough of that VA Tech shooting was a gun free zone.

    The truth is the Giffords shooting wasn't and neither were any of the dozen or so holiday incidents we're still writing about.

    The fact that concealed carry doesn't help cannot be blamed on gun free zones.

  5. Mikeb302000,

    The shootings that your side goes on about are in homes and bars.

  6. Many of these attacks happen in "gun-free zones." People who obey the laws aren't allowed to have guns. Criminals don't let laws deter them.

    And many don't - like the Giffords shooting, where at least one concealed carrier nearly shot one of the Loughner victim after he had wrestled the gun from Loughner.

    There were concealed carry customers at stores and in the surrounding area of this shooting.

    They made not the slightest difference to the outcome.

  7. Dog Gone,

    But they also did nothing wrong in that event. Perhaps they were not close enough at the time to act. Perhaps they felt that self preservation was more important than rushing in to get involved.

    I'm confused about your standard. Must we actively pursue evil doers? If we do, you call us vigilantes. If we do nothing, you say that shows that we don't need our guns. Just admit that you don't want anyone carrying a gun, period.