Batman Colorado Theater Shooting - Story vs. Reality

[Jerry Biggers]

Looking for the Rand quote wherein she displays a certain sympathy towards Marx's disparaging comment on 'Marxists'? How about this?

“Anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain… This made me feel a little bit of sympathy for Karl Marx who, on being told about some outrageous statements made by some Marxists, answered: 'But I am not a Marxist.'”

Ayn Rand, Introduction to the first issue of Harry Binswanger’s

The Objectivist Forum, Feb, 1980 (italics added)

I believe she had also expressed similar views on this issue on other occasions, but the above quote seems succinct enough to me.

[Selene]

Interesting video. A different ending than the Colorado Theater Massacre....

Ghs

Yep, it is that simple. The Armed Citizen is a column in each issue of the American Rifleman:

A random page:

The Armed Citizen January 2011

12/15/2010

*Boom! A ruckus woke a woman and her two young children. Her first thought was that an earthquake had occurred, and she quickly called her husband at work to confirm it. No earthquake had been reported. The woman worried that the source of the sound could be something more sinister, so she retrieved her handgun and walked down the hallway. Police said she encountered two burglars in the living room. Terrified, she fired several shots, killing one intruder and wounding the second, who will be arrested after his release from the hospital. "In my opinion, she did all the right things to protect herself and her children," said Police Chief Brandon Clabes. "It's unfortunate a death occurred, but it was a direct result of criminal activity." (The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK, 10/22/10)

*Charles Place was walking in a restaurant parking lot when a man snuck up behind him, grabbed him and reached for his wallet. Unfortunately for the suspect, the 83-year-old man was in no mood to become a victim. Police said he resisted and was knocked to the ground. That's when Place drew his .25-cal. semi-automatic handgun, for which he has a permit to carry. He showed his assailant the gun and demanded to be left alone. The suspect fled but was followed by a witness who helped police make the arrest. (The Daytona Beach News-Journal, Daytona Beach, FL, 09/26/10)

Armed Citizen Extra

(The following account did not appear in the print version of American Rifleman.)

Early one evening, an armed man entered a rural gas station and demanded money. The station owner was carrying a gun, and he and the would-be robber began firing at each other. When it became clear that he needed backup, the suspect ran out to the getaway car, and then a second shooter entered the firefight. The owner then retrieved another handgun he had stashed and stood his ground. The first shooter was found dead in the car of gunshot wounds, the other fled into a nearby forest. The station owner was not injured. (The News & Observer, Micro, NC, 10/16/10)

From The Armed Citizen Archive

January 1977: When a robber entered her San Antonio, Tex., convenience store and demanded money, Kiern Ahn Buentello pretended she didn't understand English. The man became flustered, and Mrs. Buentello used the opportunity to draw a pistol from beneath the counter. The frightened bandit backed out the front door and fled. (The News, San Antonio, TX)

[Selene]

Here is a shooting at a public gathering in Aurora Colorado that took place in April of 2012 and had a remarkably different outcome:

While this past weekend’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado got a lot of national attention, a previous shooting, which took place in April and virtually no one heard about it. On April 22, 2012 convicted felon Kiarron Parker, just released from jail, entered the parking lot of an Aurora, Colorado church and shot and killed one of the members of the congregation before being killed himself by a member carrying concealed.

Parker had been convicted for assaulting two police officers, breaking and entering and drug abuse. The details of his criminal past can be found here and here.

As the left attempt to politicize the issue of the tragedy that took place this past weekend, we have yet to see this story in the headlines, and why not?

I’ll tell you why. This story, though just as tragic, had somewhat of a positive outcome. There was a hero that stopped it and was carrying concealed. He saved lives by using his gun effectively to stop a criminal that had just killed one woman and possibly was ready to kill others.

The Huffington Post reports,

Parker sped into the parking lot of New Destiny Center church in Aurora, crashed into a car, then fired at people who came to his aid. The shooting

killed Josephine Echols, the mother of a pastor at the church

, police said.

Echols’ nephew Antonio Milow, an off-duty Denver police officer who was attending a church service, then shot and killed Parker, authorities said.

“Who knows what would’ve happened if the officer had not been there. It certainly could have been a lot worse,” Fania said.

Investigators do not know what upset Parker, but it didn’t appear that Parker and his friend were arguing, Fania said.

I know what many liberals would be claiming here and that is that this was an off-duty police officer and as such it was ok for him to have a weapon, but the average Joe should not be carrying a gun. In fact, they would point to police as those who are to protect us from such incidents. What would have happened had officer Milow not been attending the service? Would there have been police officers to protect anyone else and stop the senseless killing that Parker had started? Probably not.

Some will say, “Well that’s just one woman, not 12 dead and 59 injured.” This is true, but this one woman was a nurse and a mother of one of the pastors at the church. The issue is not how many lives. The question that should be asked here is “What stopped the man from killing or injuring more?” A man who carried his weapon, knew how to use it and didn’t hesitate in using it to stop further tragedy.

The point is that we don’t need further gun control laws. What we need is more people who obtain guns and train with them so that they can effectively use them, such as Officer Milow did, to protect themselves and take out the bad guy should they face a similar circumstance. Maybe one day we’ll get people in office that will eliminate the charade that is “gun control.” I’m not holding my breath though.

My, my so the evil gun saved lives.

Is it not rather amusing that a tool in the hands of a good man does good and a tool in the hands of a bad man does bad.

Surely it is within the character of the tool that determines the outcome right?

Surely it is not the intention of the wielder of the tool that determines the outcome!

I mean a scalpel in the hands of a homicidal maniac would achieve the same results as in the hands of a skilled surgeon in the OR...right?

Adam

[syrakusos]

Like the Volstead Act (18th Amendment, 1919), and like the "War on Drugs" (or Poverty), any complete ban on guns is doomed until and unless the overwhelming cultural context is to eschew weaponry, just as we all generally, deny the validity of specifying a person's catechism. Yet, as the young Eliot Ness proved, if you are rational and methodical, you can get to the source and cut it off. An "untouchables" campaign against guns would begin with the registration of all concealable firearms. At the same time, new purchases would be limited to law enforcement agencies and military departments. Sales to private citizens would be illegal. Period. At the same time, of course, as with the Volstead Act, it would take one perhaps two complete generations of influence to get people to generally eschew firearms. The Michigan State University Museum had a cut-away lifesize diorama of a farmhouse circa 1900 - women and girls serving men breakfast - and the wall held a cross-stich "This House is Dry." It would take that level of commitment.

Among the truest and staunchest supporters of a ban on firearms would be the real "radicals for capitalism" who understand that a rational life is possible only when the govenrment holds a complete monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

The claim as here above that a homicidal maniac could use a scalpel falls into what Stuart Hayashi on this board called the "Argument from the Metaphysically Impossible." There is no such thing as a single-edge weapon that automatically slices a dozen people at a distance with the press of a button.

Guns don't kill. People with guns kill.

[Selene]

Yep...that Timothy McVeigh was armed to the teeth with that thar fertilizer gun...

Yep...them thar 911 guys had them thar rapid fire box cutters...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Good people with guns don't kill.

Bad people with guns kill. And if nobody is around to stop them, they kill a lot.

Good people with guns stop bad people with guns from killing as much as they want to.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Like the Volstead Act (18th Amendment, 1919), and like the "War on Drugs" (or Poverty), any complete ban on guns is doomed until and unless the overwhelming cultural context is to eschew weaponry, just as we all generally, deny the validity of specifying a person's catechism. Yet, as the young Eliot Ness proved, if you are rational and methodical, you can get to the source and cut it off. An "untouchables" campaign against guns would begin with the registration of all concealable firearms. At the same time, new purchases would be limited to law enforcement agencies and military departments. Sales to private citizens would be illegal. Period. At the same time, of course, as with the Volstead Act, it would take one perhaps two complete generations of influence to get people to generally eschew firearms. The Michigan State University Museum had a cut-away lifesize diorama of a farmhouse circa 1900 - women and girls serving men breakfast - and the wall held a cross-stich "This House is Dry." It would take that level of commitment.

Among the truest and staunchest supporters of a ban on firearms would be the real "radicals for capitalism" who understand that a rational life is possible only when the govenrment holds a complete monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

The claim as here above that a homicidal maniac could use a scalpel falls into what Stuart Hayashi on this board called the "Argument from the Metaphysically Impossible." There is no such thing as a single-edge weapon that automatically slices a dozen people at a distance with the press of a button.

Guns don't kill. People with guns kill.

Objectivists advocate rights' protection. So do libertarians. You don't.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Like the Volstead Act (18th Amendment, 1919), and like the "War on Drugs" (or Poverty), any complete ban on guns is doomed until and unless the overwhelming cultural context is to eschew weaponry, just as we all generally, deny the validity of specifying a person's catechism. Yet, as the young Eliot Ness proved, if you are rational and methodical, you can get to the source and cut it off. An "untouchables" campaign against guns would begin with the registration of all concealable firearms. At the same time, new purchases would be limited to law enforcement agencies and military departments. Sales to private citizens would be illegal. Period. At the same time, of course, as with the Volstead Act, it would take one perhaps two complete generations of influence to get people to generally eschew firearms. The Michigan State University Museum had a cut-away lifesize diorama of a farmhouse circa 1900 - women and girls serving men breakfast - and the wall held a cross-stich "This House is Dry." It would take that level of commitment.

Among the truest and staunchest supporters of a ban on firearms would be the real "radicals for capitalism" who understand that a rational life is possible only when the govenrment holds a complete monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

The claim as here above that a homicidal maniac could use a scalpel falls into what Stuart Hayashi on this board called the "Argument from the Metaphysically Impossible." There is no such thing as a single-edge weapon that automatically slices a dozen people at a distance with the press of a button.

Guns don't kill. People with guns kill.

Objectivists advocate rights' protection. So do libertarians. You don't.

--Brant

And you value your right to bear arms above the lives of gun victims --even,perhaps, your own life , if it came to that form of liberty or death.

No, I'm not going around that mulberry bush again, but just strongly agree with MM's position.

[Selene]

Carol:

"...you value your right to bear arms above the lives of gun victims..."

This is your evaluation of what Brant's position is?

Adam