This was defending a Lee Judge (anti-gun hack) political cartoon, that made an anti-gun point at Chris Kyle's expense:
So Miriam Pepper wanted to argue that Judge's basic premise, that a good man with a gun is NOT effective against a bad man with a gun...
I have had no luck getting an actual letter to the editor published by the Star. I have, however, been able to toss in some replies in the comments.
For reference, Jonathan Busby is an anti whose comments you can find in the replies.
Here are my three replies to the editorial in general, and to Jonathan Busby:
To those who keep blasting Wayne LaPierre for saying that the only thing that reliably stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun, here is a thought: Why do you call the police if a bad man with a gun is running amok?
Is it because:
A) They have cool uniforms and nifty radios?
B) They are the next best thing to street psychologists?
C) They get paid to deal with bad guys? (Though there is some validity to this...)
D) They can bring force of numbers? (There is validity to this, as well...)
or is it mostly:
E) They are armed, and if necessary, they can employ force, up to and including lethal force, if that is what is required to stop the bad guy with a gun from running amok?
If the answer is E) then why is LaPierre's claim wrong?
Jonathan Busby, NOBODY is likely to defend successfully against somebody they perceive as a friend, who catches them off guard. Cherry-picking scenarios, so that only ambushes by theoretical friendlies are studied, is intellectually dishonest and statistically irrelevant.
Turn the situation into something more typical: Let's say you are walking to your car in a dark parking lot, after shopping at a big box store. Two men start approaching you, asking for money, and you notice a third man moving off at an angle to put you in an L formation.
Would you think a gun might be useful in such a scenario, if these guys escalated from panhandling to more direct threats? (Note: the guy moving off to the angle is a warning sign of an impending robbery.)
Turn it into another frequent occurrence: You are a woman, when you notice a strange man who seems to be following you while you walk or jog. In the event he turns out to be a rapist, would you rather have a cell phone? A condom? Or a gun?
In other words, in situations where a person sees the threat coming, a gun can definitely make a huge difference. According to the Center for Disease Control, guns are used successfully for self-defense in over 250,000 cases annually in the US. Even according to David Hemenway, a gun control advocate and Harvard researcher, guns are used successfully for self-defense in the US 100,000 times per year.
If you wish to claim that the person will just have their gun taken away from them, then please provide some actual facts to back that up.
I will agree that a person who is not willing to pull the trigger, if necessary, should not carry a gun. I also recommend that anybody who wishes to carry should (on a voluntary, not mandatory) basis take some classes in self-defense (both armed and unarmed).
Last thought for the day, a comment I ran across a few weeks back:
Many people believe in strict gun control, and many of those people are aetheists.
But almost every one of them, if they heard their door being kicked down in the dead of night, would do two things:
1) Call for men with guns to respond;
2) Pray that they arrive in time.