http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdSbldDKOmk#t=51

“Senseless gun violence against innocent people is commonplace in the United States,” Kansas City Star writer Barbara Shelly asserts, without any statistical justification. “[Chris] Lane’s murder is very similar to the death of Harry Stone, the Raytown, Mo., man who was shot and killed while jogging on Mother’s Day 2012. Besides isolated murders that appear to be motivated by sheer evil, there is our litany of mass shootings, deaths from shots fired in celebration, accidental shootings, suicides and a host of other ways that people die from gunshots in these United States.” Never let a potentially politically advantageous news story be seen in its proper perspective, as the Progressives might say. Best to exploit any high profile murder for the purposes of civilian disarmament, no matter what anyone says. Even the victim’s father . . .

“I’ve said at the start we’re not buying into gun control, punishment, race issues,” Peter Lane warned [via houston.cbslocal.com]. “Our kid died in horrible circumstances and that’s not going to be solved by me sitting here making statements about the American political system or anything like that.”

Or an apples-to-oranges comparison between relative levels of “gun violence” in The Land Down Under and The Land of the Free. Needless to say, Ms. Shelly goes there. I’ll leave it to TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia to counter the usual anti-gun agit-prop promoting Australia as gun-free paradise. Suffice it to say, a recent study concluded that their laws had little to no impact on “gun violence.”

And again, as Mr. Lane’s comments imply, what’s gun control got to do, got to do with it? Let’s ask Shelley . . .

We can — and assuredly will — argue among ourselves about the values of the accused teenagers, their parenting or lack of it and a possible gang influence in their town. But the murder of Christopher Lane was made possible because it is too easy in America to find a gun . . .

Abroad, we have the reputation of being a lawless nation. That’s not really accurate. Our system of laws works fairly well once a law is broken. Whoever killed Lane will face justice and likely not see the outside of prison for a very long time, if ever.

But that is surely of little consolation to the family and friends of Lane, who loved playing ball for Oklahoma’s East Central University, had a girlfriend in Duncan and was joyously going about his life. He became an American gun-violence statistic because we won’t do anything to reduce the accessibility and acceptability of guns in the United States.

Surely you jest. Lane didn’t become a “gun violence statistic” because of American gun control laws. His killers didn’t access a gun illegally because there are too many legal guns in circulation. (If draconian gun laws restrict criminal access to firearms where did the Aussie bad guys get the guns used in the video above?) Nor were Lane’s killers enabled by American gun laws or “social norms.”

The college student was killed by bad people with a gun because they were bad people and Lane happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, if Lane had been jogging with a firearm, he might have seen them coming (firearms carriers are more situationally aware) and run away from his attackers. Or shot them in self-defense and lived to tell the tale.

The National Rifle Association’s famous prescription for America’s gun problem is to make sure enough armed “good guys” are around to take out the armed bad guys.

That wouldn’t have helped Chris Lane as he jogged through the streets in a small Oklahoma town.

Remember, he was shot in the back.

How does that indicate that Lane couldn’t have defended himself with a gun? [see: above] And even if Lane couldn’t have seen it coming, does that mean that other Americans can’t defend life and limb by force of arms on a daily basis? In fact they do, every damn day of the year. Remember: guns save life. Always have, always will. Bleeding heart liberals, on the other hand . . .

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

24 COMMENTS

  1. Had these same mutts used the car they were driving in to kill lane this would have been a non story. They could have played it off as a tragic mistake, after all 40 thousand a year are killed by cars in this country.

    Because they used the gun they guarentee a murder charge and headlines. Had they used they car they could have committed murder and even if they had stumbled in their stories they would have faced a lesser charge.

    If I ever decide to do a murder it won’t be with a gun. Negligent homicide with a car carries a lot less penalty. Just don’t admit you planned it.

  2. “deaths from shots fired in celebration” – I suppose we routinely shout out “Alahu Akbar” while shooting our AK47s in the air too.

  4. How many more people have to die before the politicians get serious about going after the criminals and those with mental health problems instead of going after the hardware?

    It appears that the politicians are afraid of going after the criminals because the criminals will then go after them and their families.

    It’s safer to take away guns, ammo, and mags from law abiding citizens than it is to take them away from criminals and those with mental health problems.

  5. These stupid bitches keep poking the hornet’s nest, grabbing any and all acts of lawlessness involving a gun, and trying to circle their piece of shit gun control wagon train around it. Well, I got news for them- You are turning the Gun Owners of America from easy-going, live and let live types into Vincent Hanna from Heat. We aren’t going to go back to sleep, we aren’t going to relax, we’re going to stay sharp, on the edge, waiting for each and every one of your stupid rally calls.
    You thought you had it made, using a tragedy to push an agenda. You thought you had this one. Now, all you’ve done is pissed off the largest armed force in the world, and unified us with a purpose- to fight stupid twats such as yourself.
    The game ain’t over yet, but rest assured– YOU WILL LOSE.

  7. At this point I don’t think these people are serious anymore. Serious about civilian disarmament yes, but serious about the death of another person? Not even a little. Call it dancing in the blood or whatever but I really think there are some on the disarmament side who look forward to and are excited by violence as a vehicle to advance their cause. I don’t even think most have an agenda out side of ‘winning’, they’re just patently and willfully ignorant people with a drive to ‘do something’ about nothing in particular and have happened into the gun control movement. (Keep in mind I think liberalism is a form of mental disorder than ought to be admitted in the DSM.) I think it ends up defining them because deep down losing enables them to maintain their victimhood and thus it’s the perfect cause.

    I honestly think that a liberal cannot be elected in the US by telling anything resembling the truth on the campaign trail but that might be changing. We may be getting nearer to a time when the uniformed, the indoctrinated and the just plain crazy will rule the day and someone can win running on a campaign of ‘steal from the producers to supply the non producers’ or something just that crazy like ‘lets all surrender to crime and victimhood’.

    Perhaps my exhaustion is making me cynical (or perhaps I’m just a cynic) but it seems to me that the fact that the sort of rag that would print this garbage would be out of business if there weren’t an awful lot of people with no critical thinking skills, integrity or sense of personal accountability willing to buy it. I sure wouldn’t read the Kansas City Star, not even if were the only paper left on earth.

    I wish for a day when such garbage warrants no more interest than the headlines in the Weekly Midnight Star (THE GHOST OF ELVIS IS LIVING IN MY DEN).

    • Listen to (or just read the words to) the Tool song Vicarious. It pretty much sums up what you are saying about these types of people that try to claim moral superiority.

  8. So the cop that was killed by the Boston bombers didn’t see it coming either. See, perfect progressive logic to disarm cops. The gun didn’t do this particular cop any good, therefore, no instances of documented self defense with a firearm (by a cop or citizen) can be true. Makes perfect sense if your head is shoved up your own butt hole.

      • And that’s one of the great things about being an average citizen (ie: no uniform) and carrying concealed. If you’re doing it right, nobody knows you are armed AND ccw’s usually have a heightened state of SA. Add in some practical training and drills and you can gradually increase the odds of avoiding confrontation all together or, if all else fails, being successful in protecting yourself or loved one if the need arises. Nothing is a sure thing (especially for that police officer), but I would much rather have a fighting chance than just submit to an untimely end. That will always be the difference between us and them.

  9. There are a lot of crimes involving guns. Why deny it?

    ‘Course, the number woud decrease were there fewer disarmed people to rape, rob and murder at will.

  11. This video is proof that you should not wear a hoodie while drinking tea and eating skittles.

  12. General theme:
    Even though the gun control “solution” failed in this case, let’s keep doing it, but more.

    Direct quote:
    That wouldn’t have helped Chris Lane as he jogged through the streets in a small Oklahoma town. Remember, he was shot in the back.
    The self-defense solution might have failed this case, therefore it’s a stupid idea.

    Does anybody else see this as bad logic?

Comments are closed.