Thursday, April 8, 2010

More guns mean fewer firearms deaths

I was just sent a shocking link. Some time ago, I wrote about how if we accept media premise of a link between number of guns and death or crime, it's clearly better for society to have more guns. By the way, I do think that's true. You can not stop criminals from getting guns, you can only have lawful owners so outnumber them that they're scared to even think of drawing theirs because they'll be shot by people who actually go to the range, clean their weapons and can hit something smaller than the front of a house. The main stream media, despite honest statistics and anecdotes, still pretends guns themselves, not criminals, are the problem, though.

So, when I got this Newsbuster's link, I was as surprised as Noel Sheppard to see MSNBC would publish this. Not that they don't try to make the case that it might not be private firearms making society safer, but whether it's lawful owners or some related statistical confounding factor, the fact is that there is a correlation between increased private firearms ownership and reduced numbers of firearms deaths.

Common sense will tell you that (a) if more people are properly trained and familiar with guns and what they can and can not do, and (b) criminals know they may be shot if they try to harm innocent people, there are going to be fewer incidents of gun deaths.

MSNBC also started with an incident of armed citizen self defense like I reprint weekly (eventually monthly when I run out of back issues of American Rifleman).
Waving a chromed semiautomatic pistol, the robber pushed into the building in the bustling Five Points neighborhood of Columbia, S.C., just before 11 p.m. on April 11, 2009. “Gimme what you got!” he yelled, his gun hand trembling.

Attorney Jim Corley was one of four people in the room, the lounge area of a 12-step recovery group’s meeting hall. “He said, ‘Give me your wallet,’” Corley recalled. “So I reached around to my back pocket and gave him what was there.”

Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.

Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.

My response? Good for you, Mr. Corley. Also, as any carry enthusiast will tell you, the best gun is the one that's light enough for you to carry all the time, as you never know when trouble will find you.

MSNBC goes on:

Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
My response? Mourn what? Helms' indefensible, irresponsible and inexcusable decision to put innocent people at risk by waving a gun around, put those people in fear of their lives and attempt to rob them? Now, the taking of human life is always regrettable, even tragic, but Helms is at fault, and no one else bears any responsibility for the outcome of his actions. In fact, perhaps Mr. Corley should be able to sue the family for producing such an awful human being. Such suit would make as much sense as trying to blame Corley for defending himself.

Further, good for South Carolina. I'd love it if every state prohibited criminals and their families from suing victims when the victim has the "temerity" to defend himself or herself instead of complacently getting robbed, raped or murdered and waiting for police to sort out the evidence and maybe catch the attacker. South Carolina just moved up my list of places to move when I eventually get out of California.

As it seems very appropriate, I'll repost one of my very favorite images:


To the media's shock, it would appear the founders really were trying to make society safer with the 2nd amendment. Some of us aren't surprised.

No comments: