“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 . . .