Posted on 01/29/2011 7:07:18 PM PST by kathsua
I find it fascinating that in two columns by Bob Herbert of the NY Times and one by the editor of the Hutchinson News, the writers can only come to one conclusion in the face of several public mass shootings in the US: more gun control. It is useful to consider the phrase "first responders." In recent years it has come to refer to the first government employees who respond to an incident and who assist as best they can when they arrive at the scene. Actually, the first responders are those at the scene of an incident when it starts. I find it troubling that my fellow Hokie, Colin Goddard, a victim in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, has been so conditioned by the society he grew up in that he knows not only that he should not be armed but the only thing he can or should try to do in the face of a deadly threat is dial 911 and hide. That was the campus policy that day (it still is), and 32 were killed and 17 injured by the shooter. Surely there is a more effective way to deal with an active shooting. Mass non-family shootings overwhelmingly occur in designated gun free zones.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was in Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, Oct. 16, 1991, when another madman crashed through the wall of the building, stepped out of his pickup and systematically assassinated 23 innocent people, including her parents; many were wounded. She states emphatically that had she been armed she would have stopped the carnage much sooner, but she had left her gun in her car in accordance with Texas law and indeed was helpless in the face of madness. Was it a pipe dream that she might have done something useful had she been armed? NO.
In the book and DVD "Shooting Back," Charl Van Wyk recounts how he was able to stop a terrorist attack against a congregation of about 1,500 Christian church worshipers. He had a small revolver; they had fully automatic AK 47s and hand grenades and intended to kill everyone in the church. In what is known as the St. James Massacre of July 25, 1993, in Cape Town, South Africa, 11 died and 53 were wounded. Van Wyk has concluded that ordinary citizens not only have the right to be armed for self defense, they have a moral duty to be able to protect themselves, their families and society against mindless evil that can erupt anywhere, anytime.
As to the study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, their methodology was terribly flawed in concluding folks in possession of firearms were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those unarmed. John Lott, in "More Guns, Less Crime," reached just the opposed conclusion, and further, that civilian-owned firearms are used over two million times a year in the U.S. to stop crime, usually with no shots fired. Privately owned firearms save lives and prevent crime.
The best keyword for gun related threads is ‘banglist.’
I can’t prove that more guns equals less crime, but I can prove more guns do not create more crime. There are two sets of facts we know for sure;
1. In 2009, millions of extra guns were purchased by Americans.
2. FBI/DOJ statistics showed a decrease in crime in 2009, particularily murder and violent crimes.
Bumper sticker from the ‘70’s : ‘Criminals prefer unarmed victims’
Federal DOJ stats prove that concealed carry laws are directly responsible for about an average 29% drop in crime in a state.
Federal DOJ stats prove that concealed carry laws are directly responsible for about an average 29% drop in crime in a state.
A bit vague on details. Can you provide a reference on this? I suspect that the conclusion is right, but I would like to check the statistics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.