Category: Crime

…and are equally armed, the good will win.

Florida armed bystander stops gunman at crowded back-to-school event at park, police say

Man opens fire inside Oklahoma restaurant before ‘armed citizen’ shoots, kills him, police say

Ban a particular weapon, and the criminals will find another:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan targets knives as murder rate spikes: ‘There is never a reason to carry a knife’

I can think of one – to protect yourself against a knife-wielding murderer.

Allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves against criminals is a good thing; infringing upon the liberties of law-abiding citizens is a bad thing.

The bodies not even cold, already some (examples here and here) are attempting to leverage the memory of the 20+ killed in Texas today to push for more gun control. Not only is this in poor taste, it is not productive.

Devin Kelly, the alleged shooter, was court-martialed and discharged from the military for assaulting his wife and child. Gun control laws already make a domestic violence conviction (battery on a spouse, family member or significant other) a disqualifying offense. It is possible that the military records are not part of the background check system, or that the charge against him was not properly identified as domestic violence, but on the surface it appears that he was not eligible to own a firearm. If so, additional laws will not help; instead, a push for proper enforcement of existing laws would be a better course of action.

However, I doubt that people like Wil Wheaton or Chelsea Handler are concerned with enforcing exiting gun laws.  Instead, based on their posts regarding firearms, I would wager that they are in favor of an outright ban on all firearms. Their position is likely that a complete ban would have prevented this catastrophe. I disagree with such a position, and offer the following to support my case:

1)  People like this shooter want to kill; how is irrelevant. They could have just as easily run these defenseless people over in the parking lot with a rented truck or left a fertilizer and diesel bomb parked outside and leveled the church in its entirety.  It’s hard to stop crazy; they have options other than just firearms. Even a complete ban on guns will not stop people so motivated.

2)  Firearms provide many useful services to the general public, including the ability to defend oneself against attackers who are larger, more numerous, or armed. For example, note that this shooter was engaged as he left the church by an armed citizen; this resulted in the loss of the shooter’s assault rifle as he fled the scene. The actions of this armed civilian likely stopped the attack and prevented additional deaths, and underscores the importance of civilians having the means to defend themselves from such determined and crazed individuals.

3)  Criminals are unlikely to be deterred from such acts by more laws restricting a small subset of their available weapons. If you’re a killer going out to kill people, are you really going to be concerned about the illegal posession of your weapon of choice? Doesn’t murder outweigh a weapons charge?

4)  You simply cannot stop crazy; the best you can do is defend yourself when they arrive. More restrictive gun laws, which will likely be followed by law abiding citizens who are of no risk to anyone, will simply leave the honest citizen unable to defend themselves against the dishonest. What kind of effect do you think this will have on person-to-person violent crimes, such as robbery, rape, carjacking, or home invasions? With a disarmed populace to attack and without fear of reprisal by their victims, I would expect criminals to have a field-day cleaning out the valuables of those who do not have the physical means to defend themselves against a few or more local hoodlums.

Try as you might to denigrate the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, they do provide a useful service to society. The founders knew this to be true, and it’s why the 2nd Amendment exists in our constitution. Don’t be so quick to judge the 2nd amendment before you consider the positive aspects of having the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your country.

And for gods sake, please stop politicizing these tragic events.

A convicted felon, unable to own or possess firearms, allegedly uses one to kill the father of his stepson in their San Francisco home. He claims self-defense, and is not prosecuted – not even as a felon in possession of a firearm. Why? Could it be because he’s a documentary film maker and activist in the good graces of the SF elite?

In nearby Vallejo, a woman and her boyfriend retreat from a confrontation with a third party. As they are driving away, the third party fires an allegedly full-auto AK-47 at the car and hits the girlfriend, killing her. The shooter, a suspected gang member, claims self-defense (?!?) and is not charged. However, the boyfriend is charged with murder for bringing his girlfriend to the encounter. Why? Who knows…

Only in California…

… only serve to leave innocent, law-abiding citizens disarmed and defenseless against ruthless or crazed criminals. After all, by definition criminals ignore the law; why should gun laws be any different?

A San Francisco UPS driver shot 5 co-workers at a driver’s meeting on June 14th of this year. He did not care that murder is a crime; he did not care that at least one of the guns he used was banned under California law; he did not care that his guns were stolen. He only cared that he was armed and his victims were not.

Strict gun laws will never disarm criminals. In this case, California’s strict laws only provided the shooter with a pack of sitting ducks who were unable to defend themselves against a disturbed attacker armed with stolen weapons.

There are a lot more good people out there than bad. If we allow properly trained and vetted law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for their defense and the defense of others, attackers such as this will not stand a chance (but at least our citizens would).

I’m always surprised (but I don’t know why…) whenever guns are blamed for any increase in violent crime rates. Never mind that overall violent crime and homicide rates have been falling for decades [See U.S. DOJ report and FBI data] while firearm sales (as evidenced by background check statistics) have risen to record levels. Clearly, more guns equal less crime, right? Not according to Chicago.

Note that Chicago city officials and police “…have lamented the flood of illegal guns into the city…”, which is where they place the blame for Chicago’s current homicide wave. OK, Batman, so riddle me this: If illegal guns are the problem, then how will more gun laws solve this problem? The criminals are already ignoring existing laws to obtain firearms as needed; what makes you think they won’t ignore additional laws? More gun laws will only disarm your law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against Chicago’s thugs.

In another disturbing revelation, Chicago police point to another possible cause of the increased violence. Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, as cited in a recent news article:

He noted 2016 was the first full year since the city was forced in November 2015 to release video of the fatal police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, who was black and shot 16 times by a white police officer.

OK, this is very important so pay close attention: note that he does not blame the police office who needlessly shot Laquan McDonald 16 times; instead, he blames being forced to release the video as the reason for Chicago’s increased violence. Can you say “hubris”?

Maybe the real cause of the increased violence in Chicago is the fact that police arrests were down more than 28% in 2016, with the sharpest drop in arrests associated with the areas of highest crime [Chicago Sun-Times]. What would you expect to happen if you no longer lock up the criminals? That crime would go down??

My fear is that the drop in arrests are responsible for the rise in violent crime, but that anti-gun politicians will use it as a means to demand even more onerous (and ineffective) gun control laws that will only punish and disarm law-abiding citizens. I hope – for the sake of Chicago’s remaining inhabitants – that this is not the case.