Tuesday, March 19, 2013 • 8:44 AM Comments (2)

Carrying a Gun: A Very Big Deal

posted by James Heflin

Here's an interesting case to examine: former Marine with handgun stops a crime.

It's a fine example of the sort that gets trotted out by our NRA friends to say, "See, it works! And all you crazy liberals want to take away our protection!"

And yes, of course, sometimes is does work. Have yet to see an argument to the contrary. A lot has to go right, and thank heavens it did here. Kudos to Mr. Blackmore. It probably helped that he had intense training in the military; most of us don't.

It's also a fine example of something that would remain completely unaffected by tightening restrictions on high-capacity magazines and on certain rifles. (He had a handgun.) Please read that twice if you're tempted to embrace the "take all our guns away" canard.

Worth noting, too, that a gun is often entirely unnecessary to stopping a crime. The details notwithstanding, this is something I know from experience. Might have been better or worse if a gun had been involved.

How many situations like this happen every day, to all kinds of people? How many variations play out? Some perpetrators have guns; some interveners have them; some victims have them. The complexities and sudden turns of such situations mean, I contend, that sometimes a gun is an advantage, and sometimes it means innocent people get shot.

Carrying a gun is a very big responsibility, and raises the stakes in such situations enormously. It's worth considering, no matter what side of the current debate you fall on, what outcomes are possible.

Comments (2)
Post a Comment

Can you cite any studies showing that conceal carry areas have higher instances of gun crime? Just curious.

Posted by k on 3.19.13 at 15:33

The fact is more and more democrat elected officials are getting caught admitting that banning all guns is the ulimate goal. (Jan Schakowsky, Diane Feinstein, etc) So stating otherwise to appease your opponents is disingenuous at best.

As for conceal carry, there are no studies I'm aware of that suggest they increase gun crime - studies out there actually suggest the exact opposite, which raises an obvious question... maybe too obvious to carry weight in such an emotional quest by the left: Wouldn't it make the most sense to arm more law abiding citizens thereby reducing the number of value rich targets for mass shooters (ie gun free zones)? Once you free yourself from the emotional response of guns=bad, it's really the only logical conclusion. If every mass shooter stops at the first sign of real resistance (and they do) then the logical conclusion HAS to be offering earlier and more predictable resistance via law abiding citizens trained to defend themselves with a weapon on their person.

We all know some crime can be avoided without a gun - that's not the discussion and hardly constitutes an argument.

Posted by Ben on 3.21.13 at 11:03
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
« Most Recent Post
« Permalink
Print Email RSS feed

Photo Galleries
Archives
MARCH 2013
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Low non-Earth Orbit
Copyright © 2014 by The Valley Advocate.