If you want facts about guns, visit the Gun Facts Website.
All it does is present myths about guns, then refutes them with documented facts and statistics, often with that data coming from neutral and/or anti-gun sources.
So sure, maybe it’s part of the lies, damn lies, and statistics of the “pro gun lobby/agenda”. But then let’s see documented facts and evidence to the contrary.
Via SayUncle I learn about Gun Free Kids. They are, of course, against concealed carry on campus.
America’s colleges and universities are under attack from the gun lobby.
We’ll ignore the fact they’re under attack by crazy people bent on hurting innocent students.
The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus is writing to colleges and universities across the country to alert them of the threat and to urge them to band together to oppose the gun lobby’s agenda to push guns into college campuses.
The is no agenda to push guns into college campuses. All there is is a movement to break down artificial legal barriers that keep law-abiding citizens from engaging in law-abiding activities, such as self-defense. Look, Virginia Tech already had policies prohibiting guns on campus, but that didn’t stop Cho Seung-Hui from going crazy. I dare say the only thing that could have stopped crazy would have been an armed student willing to shoot back. But instead all we have are sheep and wolves, and if there are any sheepdogs on campus the law forced them to leave their teeth elsewhere.
The case against guns on campus is strong. There are many reasons why it would be dangerous to introduce guns into colleges and universities.
- Arming students would make campuses more dangerous every hour of every day
- Armed students would be accountable to no one
- Arming students would not deter the rare campus shooting
- Academic debate cannot flourish in a room full of guns
- There are better ways to make college campuses safer
Ok….
You’re not going to stop violence and evil by banning guns; in fact, gun bans tend to lead to increases in crime (why? because Joe Citizen is now too weak to adequately fight back). Guns are merely a tool, and guess what? That tool works great in the hands of The Good Guys against Bad Guys! The Good Guys obey the law, so pass a law to ban guns, now the Good Guys won’t have guns — but The Bad Guys still will.
This group’s tag line is “protecting families from gun violence”. But as I look around their website, I fail to see how they’re doing anything to protect me and my family from gun violence, or even just plain old violence. I’d like them to explain that better. All I see right now are a lot of emotional appeals, no facts, and no real substance as to how they’re protecting anyone from anything.
I don’t deny there are stupid people out there, that there are dangerous people out there, that there are evil people out there. That these people are out to cause harm to innocent lives. And many times these people choose guns as the tool by which they inflict their harm. And when they go to inflict their harm, they have demonstrated they don’t care about social norms, standards, laws, ordinances, agreements, boundaries, signs, or you and your well-being. If you wish to abridge these people, I’m all for it. But until you can present me (y’know, one of The Good Guys) with some failsafe and foolproof way to keep them from injuring me, my family, my friends, and other good people in this world, please don’t cripple me and rob me of my choice of tools.
Here’s the Second Amendment News Roundup for February 12, 2009.
Meta-blogging I guess.
Arkansas’s House just passed a bill approving concealed carry in church.
I applaud this. Texas’ concealed carry laws originally prohibited carry in church but the law changed to allow it (unless, like any place they post a valid 30.06 sign).
Like I said before, having such laws only stop the law-abiding good guys. The law-breaking bad guys don’t care. The wolves will roam where they please, especially to places where it’s easy to pick off the sheep. Laws don’t erect magical force-fields to keep out the bad guys.
From the article:
Rep. Steven Breedlove, D-Greenwood, a minister at the Valley View Church of Christ, said allowing concealed handguns won’t stop someone from opening fire inside a church.
“Ronald Reagan was completely surrounded by armed guards and he was still shot,” Breedlove said. “And that is why we must put our faith in God and not put our faith in something else … Let us keep the sanctity of churches and put our faith in God and not in guns.”
No, it won’t stop someone bent on crazy. John Hinckley Jr. was crazy. A minister should know that bad things can happen to good people and we can’t stop it all. And although a subject of much debate, it seems rather a Christian thing to defend yourself and others.
Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.
Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
So while allowing good people to possess useful tools wherever they man roam may not stop crazy, it can act as a deterrent and discourager, and at least give you a fighting chance. Yea, it even appears to be a moral obligation.
I agree. Do not put your faith in an inanimate object — a gun. But perhaps you can have faith that God might be guiding some to do His will, to be the sheepdogs helping The Shepherd guard his flock. Just ask Jeanna Assam.
Update: Robb chimes in with his take on the matter.
Oh t3h interwebtubes are rife with endless debate about gun stuff, from your choice of gun sucks to your caliber sucks and every possible debate in between.
One thing tho I haven’t seen much debate on tho is capacity… well, at least within the gun-toting community. Across the lines there are those that believe a capacity of zero is ideal, or if they’re feeling generous might think 10 is the most one could ever need. I mean, what reason could you ever have to need to fire more than 10 rounds?
When you look at the reports of police under pressure in gunfights, what is their ratio of hits to misses? Depending on the amount of training the police force gets and then the particular force, I’ve seen numbers ranging from 25-33%. So think about that. These trained professionals, and only at most 1/3 of the shots fired actually find their mark. You have to realize in a gunfight tho, that’s probably fair. Training takes you so far, then you’ve got adrenaline rushing, you’re moving, the bad guy is moving, you’re not going to bat 1000 under those circumstances.
So now let’s look at you, average citizen. You may not have as much training or at least as much exposure and conditioning to such pressure-filled situations. So let’s put things on the lower end of the spectrum at 25% hit ratio. That means 1 out of every 4 bullets fired will hit its mark. Now we have to understand that handguns are woefully underpowered and it’s unlikely that only 1 bullet will stop the attacker. Let’s say you’ll need at least two (but there’s no guarantee how many you’ll need). So that means you’ll need to fire at least 8 bullets. If you’re arbitrarily limited to 10 rounds, well… you might be ok.
Now note that few attackers act alone. Sure maybe you might only confront one person, but there’s usually a lookout or backup hiding off in the shadows. So now you’ve got 2 guys to deal with… that’d be what? at least 16 bullets needed?
And you can see where this math can go.
Now I admit, I’m just playing with numbers. But I prefer to err on the side of caution. You never know what you’re going to need or what you may be up against. Sure .45 ACP is a great round, but a lot of 1911-style handguns can only carry 8 of them, but a XD-45 can carry 14. Or you could get a XD(m) in 9mm and carry 20 rounds. .45 ACP sucks just as much as 9mm sucks just as much as .40 S&W sucks just as much as most any handgun round sucks. So, all sucking being equal, I like that 9mm allows increased capacity.
Wolves tend to travel in packs. How does it help the sheep if the sheepdogs can’t have all their teeth?
Just read about Gun Rights Week at James Madison University.
I attended JMU for my undergrad. If it’s anything now like it was back then this probably won’t go over well with the general student populace. But that’s to be expected with a bunch of 18-21 year olds at a liberal arts college in the United States, likely on their own for the first time in their lives, experiencing freedom (i.e. no mom & dad looming over them) like never before. Given how I thought at the time, if this had happened when I was there I too probably would have wondered what the point was and thought concealed carry on a college campus was more dangerous and inviting bloodshed in the classroom if there was a minor disagreements over how to interpret some poem in English class, shootouts on The Quad over hackey sacks, or poor food choices in D-Hall.
But as I’ve documented here, I’ve since changed. I’ve improved my education on and understanding of the matter. And the stark reality is creating “gun free zones” in reality creates a “victim-full zones”. Virginia Tech is just a short drive from JMU. If creating a “gun free zone”, like a school or university, also erected a magical force-field that kept the bad guys and the crazies out and allowed a blissful sheep-like existence within, I’d be all for it. But alas, such things don’t exist, and the wolves roam without regard for artificial boundaries. All “gun free zones” do is keep out the sheepdogs, and the sheep keep grazing on The Quad.
Ignorance is only bliss until your rose-colored glasses are violently shattered (VaTech, various other school-based shooting tragedies). There’s movement within Texas for this year’s state legislative session to improve things in this very manner, and I support those efforts and will do what I can to help them succeed. I’m all for removing barriers that abridge sheepdogs.
Terminology and semantics matter, folks. There’s no two ways about it.
Hecate ponders about betting your life. She makes many valid points about self-defense and personal responsibility, the biggest of which is that self-defense is your own responsibility.
Like anything we must learn, ways and tricks to help us learn and retain the information is useful. One learning technique is using acronyms. Hecate’s article points out a couple and I wanted to add a couple more.
Uncle Ted on why gun sales are up.
FTFA:
Our founding fathers supported an individual’s right to own guns. Unlike Obama and Holder, those vanguards of freedom understood that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not be achieved without being able to protect yourself and your loved ones from human scum who would deny you your fundamental God-given rights.
What our new president and his attorney general obviously want is control. Studying other gun-grabbing regimes of the past, they know the first thing that needs to be done to turn us from citizens to subjects is to disarm us.
I received an alert from TSRA last night and was going to write this up myself, but JR over at A Keyboard and a .45 beat me to it.
I’m happy that Senator Jeff Wentworth is my State Senator. 🙂
