Colorado Shooting Is No Excuse for Gun Control

gunEvery time some psychopath starts killing people, the same words and phrases get tossed around in an attempt to wrap our brains around such a senseless tragedy. “Senseless tragedy” is a perfect example of this. “Disturbing images” is another. When firearms are used, the phrase “gun control” is thrown into the mix.

I’m a strong proponent of gun control -- that is, controlling your weapon well. Use both hands and don’t forget the safety, people.

Last week, twelve people died and dozens more were injured in a Colorado movie theatre when James Holmes opened fire at the Dark Night midnight premiere. One thing could have prevented many of those fatalities and injuries: If someone had been carrying a concealed weapon, they could’ve taken the gunman down at the beginning of his rampage.

It’s funny how being shot at in the middle of breaking the law tends to encourage criminals to, you know, STOP BREAKING THE LAW. Samuel Williams knows that, as he stopped two punks from carrying out an armed robbery of an Internet café in Florida last week. Williams, who has a concealed carry permit, shot the robbers before they ran out the door. They were later found in a nearby hospital being treated for gunshot wounds.

Last spring, some nut job started stabbing people at a Salt Lake City grocery store. A citizen with a gun was able to stop Stabby McStabberson before he could harm more than two victims.

Tracy Bridges, Todd Ross, and Ted Besen kept Peter Odighizuwa from murdering more than three people at Appalachian School of Law in 2002 when he opened fire on campus. The classmates grabbed their guns out of their cars and were able to subdue Odighizuwa until law enforcement could arrive.

Guns don’t kill people -- people kill people. Banning guns only ensures that responsible, law-abiding citizens won’t be packing heat, because guess what? Criminals don’t follow the rules. That’s what makes them criminals.

Look what happened in London. In 1997, the city banned private ownership of handguns. In the two years that followed, the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40 percent. Reason magazine points out that the ban “has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them.”

A year ago this month, a Norwegian evildoer shot and killed over 80 people in Oslo. Norway has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, by the way. It’s almost like banning guns doesn’t only not work, but in fact harms private citizens by giving deranged crackpots confidence and bravado that they won’t be stopped.

The United States has seen a decrease in the rates of violent crime involving firearms. Interesting that that has happened during the same time that gun sales and applications for concealed carry permits have increased dramatically.

Guns don’t kill people. Bad guys kill people. Let the good guys keep their guns.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Where Do You Stand on the Gun Control Debate?


Image via kcdsTM/Flickr

crime, death, guns

60 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

JAFE JAFE

I agree. Criminals are the ones who break the law. They can make all the laws they like and only us law abiding people will follow it. The wackos will still be doing bad things.

Rhond... RhondaVeggie

Only a complete idiot would argue that citizens should be allowed to get assault weapons that are only good for this kind of shooting spree. Guns may not up and kill people independently but they sure make it easy. If Holmes had had no gun or even just a hand gun or hunting gun he would have done a lot less damage. There is no reason he needed those kinds of weapons and I'd think even someone as dim witted as you would realize that.

Lilyp... Lilypad523

While I typically disagree with most things Jenny says, I do agree with this particular article. The only beef I have with this article is that I do not think a civilian with a gun would have stopped the shooter in this situation, for a few reasons. Number one, the movie theatre is pretty dark; that makes for tough aim. Number two, there was total and complete chaos. People were running around, screaming, and on top of that there was some type of smoke bomb or tear gas that was set off, hindering vision even more. Dark theater+people runing/screaming+smoke bomb/tear gas=a pretty slim chance of even the most skilled shooter to identify the gunman and accurately aim and shoot him. Additionally, this sicko was basically covered from head to toe in bulletproof material; even if someone had shot him, he might have been unscathed. I do think that people who have been properly trained and licensed should be allowed to have a gun on their person, but I think its a little naive to think that, in this situation, a civilian with a gun could have ended the situation much sooner. In any case, banning guns and creating more gun laws is not the answer, as it will only affect the law abiding citizens to begin with. Criminals will find a way to break the law, not matter what.

JAFE JAFE


I think you're the dim witted one Rhonda. Anyone can get any kind of gun they want day or night. Legal or not. A law isn't going to change that. What if he'd stabbed people to death? Should we outlaw knives?


Also, for the record, he didn't use "assault weapons." He used common guns.


Allie... AllieTrueAllie

I need to understand what kind of concealed weapon would've shot through body armor of the kind this guy was wearing. I don't know much about guns at all and I don't purport to know. I'm just wondering how someone would've been able to focus enough when assault rifle bullets are flying, people are fleeing, falling, running, screaming, to be able to aim properly and take a headshot because I'm assuming that would've been the only way to do it. If this is something that can be done, sure, arm the people.

Allie... AllieTrueAllie

Really? no discussion can be had on the internet without name calling? Seriously? Is it the anonymity that makes people bold or what?

bills... billsfan1104

Allie, he face didnt have a bullet proof mask.

Allie... AllieTrueAllie

Oh so someone would've been able to shoot with bullets flying at them at 100 bullets per minute and people running and screaming by? I don't know about guns. If you say this is true, I accept.  If this is true, like I said, arm the people. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Allie... AllieTrueAllie

I'I'll go get gun training tomorrow, if that's the case. Sign me up. If I can learn to shoot in a chaotic situation without hitting other people, sign me up. No sarcasm.

Pinst... Pinstripes4

Conservative pundit Bill Kristol said it beautifully: "People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles. I don't think they have a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can shoot hundred bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control. " He's right. How do high capacity magazine such as that the shooter used (a 100 round drum) qualify as self defense? Common sense, people. Plus, Colorado allows concealed weapons and no one had any, so it's a moot point. These high capacity magazines are definitely worth further examination because they are intended to inflict mass harm, not to protect oneself and family.

1-10 of 60 comments 12345 Last
F