Haven’t heard an anti step into this little conundrum in a while!
You must remember when I wrote this post. Guns are used so infrequently in public places for self defense that it begs credulity to hear the gun guys try to sell legislators on the idea that that is how their guns will be used….Van Cleave tries to make us all believe that someone in the Aurora movie theater with a gun could have changed the outcome. He has absolutely no standing to say that. It hasn’t worked so far in a mass shooting….We do not need guns in libraries and on college campuses. There is no reason for people to have them there. Gun free zones do not invite criminals with guns to shoot people. Those folks intent on doing harm shoot people anywhere. The idea that a criminal or law abiding citizen thinks ahead of time about whether someone inside of a place will have a gun is just a specious argument.
Ok first let’s touch on Joan’s little parallel universe “facts”. First guns are used defensively quite often, the low stats say around 100,000 per year (which is dead even with people who are criminally shot per year) high stats say up to 2 million. Reality is somewhere in between, and those numbers add up pretty good on the side of liberty and arming good people. Also Joan Peterson has a nice “heads I win, tales you lose” when it comes to defensive guns to stop mass shootings. If the shooter kills a bunch of people and is stopped, the defensive gun wasn’t enough, if the shooter is stopped BEFORE they can kill anybody…well that wasn’t a mass shooting so it doesn’t count! Its like the Christian Scientist method of medical care, or medical blood letting. If the person recovers the bunk treatment was the solution, if the person dies, then obviously they were too sick and there was NOTHING that could have saved them!
Still the Conundrum is that we don’t NEED to have guns and shouldn’t carry them because we’ll never use them and that doesn’t happen…but we NEED “Gun Free Zones”, and onerous gun control laws because armed people very frequently commit mass murder.
Of course the issue is these two observations are contradictory. Its obvious that police protection is hardly enough because such events DO indeed happen, and by the time the Police arrive the action is over, or the bulk of the carnage is done. Still what is it? Am I so safe that I have zero need to carry a gun, or am I living a some horrible post-apocalyptic world where murder is commonplace?
Also just like the anti-rights logic problem of “If guns were as illegal as murder, nobody would be murdered with guns” one needs to think, if we’re so safe, who fucking cares who or where people carry guns? I mean if the world suddenly had a zero violent crime rate I certainly wouldn’t NEED guns….but if the world has a zero violent crime rate, who cares what guns I own and what I do with them?
And if we live in such a dangerous world as Joan Asserts:
Semi automatic weapons are guns that shoot a lot of people in a very short time. The public understands that one. Though some hunting rifles are semi-automatic and are used to kill people as well, it is the assault type weapons that are doing the most damage in the shootings. Gun owners understand the difference.
Then why on Earth would I EVER leave my home unarmed? And why wouldn’t I want to keep my own “Assault type weapon” close at hand?….you know, because of all the mass murder!
Of course the reality is that life in America is mostly safe. Violent crime on the individual basis is fairly rare. If you’re an upstanding citizen who doesn’t deal in or associate with illegal drug economy, you’re really in overall good shape. Mass murders are even more rare, and right up there with getting bit by a shark or struck by lighting.
Still I don’t go swimming when I have an open cut and the Coast Guard helicopters are circling the beach watching the great whites, nor do I climb a tree in an electrical storm, or decide that a thunderstorm is the ideal time to go for a horseback ride in the pasture or decide to take up the game of golf.
You are relatively safe, but you are not COMPLETELY safe. People ARE killed by lighting, sharks, and spree killers, and you really need to examine factors that might put you in those numbers. Frankly even with the VPC biased “Conceal Carry Killers” project doesn’t even paint a convincing point that lawful carriers are much of a risk to public, and certainly I know I’M not a violent person. I get upset at people, and occasionally I lose my temper with some interpersonal situations…and I never so much as take a swing at those people, so my gun being used for murder seems pretty weak. I also know how long it takes for me to draw, and I know my shooting ability.
That math says Its probably a good idea for me to go armed wherever I can. Also from reading stories of defensive shooting I know that being able to qualify IDPA Master Class are probably mostly superfluous skills and the skills that can REALLY save your life are simply mental preparation and a basic familiarity and proficiency with their carry gun is all that’s needed. So its probably better for all lawful people to be armed if they so wish.
Also odd that Joan asserts that criminals don’t seem to choose “Gun Free Zones” as their areas to do mayhem, when it seems that all the shootings she revels in are indeed in “Gun Free Zones”.
Of course this is why they lose, and why her bleats of “Common Sense” is so ironic. She talks about “Common Sense” yet she’s openly contradicting herself? Good luck with that!