Once again, a gun saved lives

K

Kelly J

New member
Once Again, A Gun Saved Lives
By Chuck Baldwin
February 16, 2007


This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070216.html


This past Monday night, a gunman walked into a popular Salt Lake City mall
and opened fire with a shotgun. The trench coat-clad gunman was heavily
armed and intended to kill as many people as he could. He killed five people
before being challenged by an armed off-duty police officer. Once again, a
gun saved lives.

Salt Lake City's police chief said, "There is no question that his [the
off-duty policeman's] quick actions saved the lives of numerous other
people."

According to press reports, "Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden,
north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after
hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until
other officers arrived." The miscreant was killed in the ensuing shootout.

Mr. Hammond said, "I feel like I was there and did what I had to do."

The mall was crowded with Valentine's Day shoppers. Doubtless, had the
off-duty officer not confronted the gunman, the death toll would have been
staggering.

The incident in Salt Lake City is merely the latest example of how an armed
citizen saved the lives of innocent people. Professor Gary Kleck of the
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University has
meticulously documented that handguns are used to resist criminals on more
than two million occasions annually-far more often than they are used by
criminals to commit crimes.

More often than not, the citizen-defender is not even required to discharge
his or her weapon, as the mere sight of a firearm is enough to thwart many
potential acts of criminality. I can personally attest to at least two
occasions when the display of a handgun by a member of my immediate family
prompted a would-be criminal to quickly leave the scene.

In addition, noted author and gun rights advocate Don Kates reminds us that
Professor John Lott's book, The Bias Against Guns, states categorically that
at least three American massacres have been stopped by civilians with guns.
Make that four now.

At last count, forty states have some sort of concealed carry law. Two
states, Vermont and Alaska, do not even require their citizens to obtain a
concealed carry permit in order to legally carry a concealed weapon. It is
no coincidence that the states and cities that deny their citizens the right
to legally carry a handgun for self defense have the highest crime rates.
Just ask yourself: Would I rather take a midnight walk in downtown
Montpelier or in downtown Chicago? It is an undeniable fact that an armed
citizenry is much safer than a disarmed citizenry.

With Nancy Pelosi and her gun-grabbing Democrats now in charge of Congress,
and with neocon President G. W. Bush already on record as supporting Bill
Clinton's gun ban, it is doubly important that the American people
diligently defend their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Not
only does safety on America's streets depend on it, so does liberty itself.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal. To be removed, see
instructions below.

To subscribe to these columns, click on this link and follow the
instructions: http://00799fb.netsolhost.com/cwsubx.html

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://00799fb.netsolhost.com/cwunsubx.html

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless
otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon
address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.
 
He killed five people before being challenged by an armed off-duty police officer. Once again, a gun saved lives.

...

The mall was crowded with Valentine's Day shoppers. Doubtless, had the
off-duty officer not confronted the gunman, the death toll would have been
staggering.
Click to expand...

Very true, and I agree...however, the antis will say that if guns in general were harder to come by we wouldn't need armed citizens to stop gunmen like this one, at least not as often.

Not something I agree with wholeheartedly (or I wouldn't be here, no?), though I think it is entirely possible that if guns were harder to find this kid may not have had the motivation necessary to get his hands on one, and may not have carried out his attack. Maybe even probable. As it is guns grow on trees in this country, so finding a handgun for a so-inclined 18-year-old is not much harder than finding a six-pack of beer.

Of course, I think the overall net positive to be had by outlawing (or excessively restricting) handguns would barely outweigh, if at all, the net negative. At which point I fall on the side of personal freedom.

It is no coincidence that the states and cities that deny their citizens the right to legally carry a handgun for self defense have the highest crime rates.
Click to expand...

Chicken and egg. Did these cities have high crime rates before they started restricting guns? And did they have other socioeconomic factors that would separate them from other, similarly sized (and presumably lower crime) cities that don't?

Just ask yourself: Would I rather take a midnight walk in downtown Montpelier or in downtown Chicago? It is an undeniable fact that an armed citizenry is much safer than a disarmed citizenry.
Click to expand...

This may be the single dumbest line I've read in years concerning this debate. A mentally handicapped 12-year-old child could probably see through this level of rhetoric.

Let's see:
Montpelier, VT - population 8,000 (maybe 25,000 with surrounding area?)
Chicago, IL - population 2.8 million (more like 9-10 million with surrounding area)

Yeah, that's a real useful comparison. I could probably also go into other socioeconomic factors that make the comparison between Chicago and Montpelier absolutely asinine, but I think anybody worth talking to wouldn't need to hear it. As a group we really need to try to make sure that we don't make fools of ourselves, at least if we want to be taken seriously. This guy fails. At least most of the completely fallacious anti-gun rhetoric is the type that requires a little critical thinking, possibly digging up some numbers, and generally a little bit of effort to prove wrong. This is the kind of thing that anybody with a fifth-grade education looks at and goes, "Man, what?"


On a semi-related note, it appears that a law allowing concealed carry without a permit inside city limits (apparently already legal in rural areas) just cleared the House up here (Montana)...though from what I read last time it cleared one house it died in the other. And while our governor is pretty good when it comes to gun rights, I'd not be surprised if he didn't sign it (especially with the apparent opposition from the law enforcement community). But who knows...maybe we'll join the club soon.
 
What a sec..if some leftyloony writes an article and says guns kill people, the whole chorus starts screaming no guns dont kill, they are inanimate...its people...

So how come its OK to say a gun saves lives :confused: :p

WildnowwatchitstartAlaska
 
He's a rogue collumnist :D

But seriously, PDW's (not the military PDW) prevent crime. Storing them is sometimes a problem and in the event of a burglary firearms are a major target for criminals, especially with the registration and stuff, if the gun gets taken it gets traced back to you if you don't report it as missing. However most burglars are more afraid of meeting an armed target and if they think there is a slight possibility that things may get dangerous, most would avoid a house where the occupant is armed. Crime is an acting on an opportunistic and in most cases a weaker victim. The exsistence of a weapon, in the mind of a criminal, determines who is stronger. For example, if a criminal attempted to mug a tai kwon do black belt 65 year old lady at knife point, it's because he thinks that he has the upper hand with a weapon. As it is most armed criminals have no idea how to actually handel knives or PDW's (look at how they hold and shoot it - sideways without actually aiming). Even rudimentary knowledge of hand to hand or weapon of opportunity techniques will turn in favor of the victim. (oops getting off topic here. My mind is running away with me so i'll just stop)
 
Quote:
It is no coincidence that the states and cities that deny their citizens the right to legally carry a handgun for self defense have the highest crime rates.
Chicken and egg. Did these cities have high crime rates before they started restricting guns? And did they have other socioeconomic factors that would separate them from other, similarly sized (and presumably lower crime) cities that don't?
Click to expand...

I can tell you that Washington D.C.s Homicide Rate, and violent crime rate shot up in the wake of their gun-ban laws. I lived next to the District in the 1970s when, after a Doctor David Halbersham was killed, the politicians decided to "save" D.C. by banning the civilian ownership of all weapons. This was pre-Crack-Heroin Invasion. The increase in gun crimes was blamed on the usual suspects, and it got so bad that 911 calls were routinely answered by a busy signal.

I'm willing to bet that most other major metropolises have the same history. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top