Pro-Criminal: Double Down

So this post is getting a LOT of eyes, and I suspect myself, and others looking at the post in question are diving a lot of traffic that the anti-rights “Kid Shooting” blog never sees, so this post seems to be the only one with any real comments. Many might say that driving traffic to the antis is bad, but in this case it seems to have shaken the trees and got this great double-down from Jason Kilgore of the Joyce Foundation.

It was a justified shooting. Every life is precious, but clearly the driver was within his rights. It’s just a shame that the boy was able to access a gun for this attempt and didn’t have the values necessary to avoid it.

Again the keystone of the anti-rights attack on lawful people: “Gun Availability”. You see the gun laws only assault the lawful. We argue that the criminal element doesn’t abide by the laws on the books, but the laws of society. As we know from the more heavily prohibited illegal drugs, ANYBODY can get Cocaine within a few hours if they know the right phone number to call. If you can get coke or crack which is 100% illegal, you can probably get a gun just as easily.

The anti-rights people note that the guns in this country start out as LEGAL guns, and then fall into the hands of criminals. So their solution is to restrict legal guns more.

Of course we know how well that works for drugs…

But Mr. Kilgore seems to miss the big point of this:

SOMEBODY was going to die in this incident. The 13 year old criminal had a loaded gun and was going to do some harm. The man in the car offered his defensive rebuttal with a loaded gun of his own.

Gun availability was how the criminal got his gun…but it was also gun availability was how the innocent man defended himself!

Now Mr. Kilgore thinks he can take the gun away from both. OK first that’s a fallacy, just look at the above prohibition of cocaine, but let’s pretend his fantasy can be made fact. He feels that he can take the gun away from both people, and would have stopped this violent encounter from happening completely.

That’s why I do “Gun Death?” stories. Even if you can take the gun away from both people, is Jason saying that the 13 year old criminal wouldn’t pick up a knife, or a hammer, or a masonry brick, and commit the same violent crime?

But in his fantasy world (which simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the world) the innocent man now is unarmed! Further, do you think, even at 13, this was the thug’s first trip to the Rodeo? Do you not think this little gem hasn’t been in a fight before? Hasn’t learned how to beat another man to death with a simple tool?

Meanwhile I know nothing about the innocent man, but generally the lawful people don’t spend much time as the criminals in the arts of violence.

I’m a gun nut, and I don’t spend much time. The advantage of having guns is I don’t NEED to. If I wanted to take up Krav Mega, or Kung Fu, it would take me vastly more time to master those skills, and I still wouldn’t be as effective as I am with a gun. (There’s a reason why so many American martial arts masters also have guns. If you can get a better advantage, why not?)

So again, even in Jason’s fantasy world the criminal wins.

Sorry, not on my watch “Baldr”!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Pro-Criminal: Double Down

  1. Bob S. says:

    Jason got it right in writing but completely missed the point:

    and didn’t have the values necessary to avoid it.

    As you say, just about every kid can get his/her hands on drugs and just about every kid can get a firearm — what is the difference?

    The values they have.

    No law is going to be able to make a parent teach the value of a life.
    No law is going to be able to make a parent teach conflict resolution.
    No law is going to be able to make a parent teach the value of working for something instead of stealing it.

    No law is going to make a young thug learn those values.

    I note that Jason isn’t preaching to the gangs and the drug cartels. He isn’t up in their face trying to get them to give up their guns. He isn’t going out onto the streets to try to make a difference (never mind he isn’t making a difference where he is at either)

    • Weerd Beard says:

      But “Progressives” always think you can legislate morality….and we need JUST ONE MORE LAW(tm) to do it!

      • Greg Camp says:

        It’s interesting that there are “progressives” on both sides of the political spectrum. Real progress is toward freedom, not toward getting people to do what control freaks want them to do.

    • RedeemedBoyd says:

      Bob, I can’t agree more. One of my colleagues just said the other day that “…if we aren’t the primary influence in the lives of our children, then someone else will be; and that could be a bully, a drug dealer, a murderer, a cheater, a thief, or who knows what else.”
      The values they learn young will stick with them through their entire lives. It’s downright disheartening to see so many kids being raised by parents that don’t care about them, or don’t have simple logical reasoning abilities, or allow the television to be a full-time babysitter, or whatever else comes along.

  2. Archer says:

    “The anti-rights people note that the guns in this country start out as LEGAL guns, and then fall into the hands of criminals. So their solution is to restrict legal guns more.”

    No different than their argument that the criminals started life as law-abiding citizens, who then perform a criminal act. So their solution is to label EVERYONE as criminals-waiting-to-happen until such time as you can prove you’re not.

    Which you can’t, because even if you haven’t done anything illegal (yet), that may change next year, or tomorrow, or five minutes from now.

    That evil chunk of metal-and-plastic is in your head, perverting your mind, destroying your will, and you’re just one failed “Save vs. Insanity” roll away from instantly becoming a wild-eyed, drooling mass-murderer.

    The trouble is that “sentient artifacts with a willpower of 3 or higher” exist only in fantasy role-playing games and the antis’ imaginations-turned-realities.

    Wait! Somebody call Wizards of the Coast and break out the D20s! I’ve got a new RPG idea! :D

  3. 45er says:

    I’m not sure about where this happened, but in every place I’m aware of, the possession of a handgun by a 13-year-old isn’t legal. Therefore, the premise that making a law to make it even more “illegaller” is extremely flawed.

  4. Congrats on getting their attention, and getting them to admit that shooting to kill is justified, despite this nonsense about the evils of Stand Your Ground laws.

  5. AntiCitizenOne says:

    No law is going to make people become effective parents, but the ridiculous amount of money being spent to enforce unconstitutional gun-control laws and drug control laws could be better spent in investing in public education, or in the form of a support system for home schoolers, in order to provide more social support for the disadvantaged.

    Let’s see him try and delete this one!

  6. Dann in Ohio says:

    I think the majority of gun laws limiting access, size, type, configuration etc. has been just about effective as prohibition in the 30s and outlawing drugs today… the less restrictions, the better…

    An armed society is a polite one…

    Dann in Ohio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>