Colorado Guard Could Have Been Any Citizen
by Big Dog on Dec 10, 2007 at 20:43 Political
Columbine, Virginia Tech, the mall in Omaha, and a church in Colorado all have one thing in common. They were all places where a gunman (or gunmen) opened fire on innocent people. In several of the incidents a large number of people were murdered because they did not have protection. They were not able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and they died because of it. The irony is that several of these places are in states that allow people to carry but the murders took place in no-carry zones. It would seem that the murderers selected the targets for this reason, no resistance.
Things were slightly different at the church in Colorado Springs in that there was an armed security guard there and she pulled out her weapon, identified herself and then took out the shooter when he failed to listen. This demonstrates what could have happened in each of the other shootings if only one person had been able to exercise his Constitutional right. The only thing that is irritating is that the only person at the church allowed to have a gun was a guard. If that guard had not been there the death toll would have been higher.
I listened to a radio program the other day and I heard them talking about the mall shooting and one person suggested that they have metal detectors at the malls. That will go over like a pregnant pole vaulter. Another person called in and suggested that if people had the right to carry arms this would not have been that bad and immediately the host said well we can’t have people carrying guns. Imagine the mess if there is a sale item that runs out, Black Friday would really be black.
This is an assumption based in little reality. Nearly 40 states have open carry laws. When was the last time you read about someone getting shot because of a sale frenzy or Christmas shopping frustration? Never, because responsible gun owners don’t go around shooting people. Then the host said imagine if two gangs got ticked off in the store. Hello! Gang members get their guns illegally and carry them regardless of the law. If they want to have a shootout they will not decide against it based upon a no-carry law.
The fact is, in places like Texas and Florida, where people may openly carry, there are fewer crimes and people with carry permits are not causing them. I think one person out of 350,000 permit holders in Florida broke the law. The balance obey the law and carry their guns responsibly.
Imagine how history might look at the above incidents given different circumstances. In Columbine it might have been reported that, after hearing gunshots, a teacher pulled out his pistol and shot the criminals before they went around shooting people like fish in a barrel. Imagine the headlines at VT if one person who had a permit had been allowed to carry his weapon on campus. Police today said that two students were killed before Joe Smuckatelli, a part time student at VT, pulled his pistol and killed a deranged student who went on a shooting spree. In Omaha the news might have been very different if only one person in that mall had a weapon and could have used it against the nut job kid who went on a killing spree.
The Colorado Springs incident shows how quickly people’s lives can be saved if an armed person is able to confront an assailant. Interestingly, there are many cases where armed citizens actually stop crimes without firing a shot. The act of brandishing a weapon is often enough to stop a criminal in the act. These hardly get reported because they do not fit the gun grabbing agenda of the MSM. Even though it is painfully clear, as demonstrated in the Colorado shooting, that armed citizens save lives, politicians will still refuse to allow us our God given right to keep and bear arms.
And while they do, the murder rate will continue to rise, but only in places with strict gun control.
Source:
7 News Denver
Tags: colorado springs, columbine, criminals, gun control, omaha, Second Amendment, virginia tech
Good post. It amazes me the way liberals can argue about all the problems that law abiding citizens who carry guns would possibly cause, all the while forgetting that criminals don’t buy their guns legally.
Who knows how many lives could have been saved in all those incidents if just one person had a gun for protection.
For all of the million mom hand wringing I don’t recall anyone interviewd after the shoots saying “thank God only the crazy psyco had a gun.”
I hear it all the time: if guns were illegal there would be no crime. Well, think that if you want, but I don’t ever plan on being in Miami on business unarmed.
BD is right. Gun laws only effect law-abiding people. Criminals still manage to obtain (and use) guns all too readily. I would welcome carry laws in my state. I also agree that if someone – anyone – had been armed in the situations you mentioned, it could have saved some lives. Even one life woulld make it worth while.
On a side note, I wish that when they reported this type of violence they would only name the victims and refer to the shooter as “some loser who went off,” or something along those lines. As the mall shooter indicated, he is now famous because of his actions. I would love to take that away from them if we could.
Gun control is hitting what you aimed at, not taking guns from law abiding citizens. That’s the thing that the gun grabbing morons ignore, laws only affect those that abide by them. Criminals break the law, if they are willing to commit murder are they really going to shy away from breaking a law banning the use or possession of guns? The answer is a resounding NO.
More and more I find that the Democrats and other liberals are delusional, they delude themselves and they pull others into their delusions. Getting this country back on track starts with the family, abort a future liberal today.