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”!
