Easton Shooting Debate

I’m not sure this is a debate really anywhere except among Pennsylvania journalists:

 When it came to whether Robert Pierce Jr. was justified in shooting a would-be robber, Northampton Country District Attorney John Morganelli said the decision was “crystal clear.”

“We don’t expect our citizens to wait until they’re shot,” he said at a news conference this week.

He’s referring to the self-defense shooting case I blogged about here.  But there are other sides to the story:

Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a Newark-based organization devoted to reducing gun violence, said gun proliferation leads to more gun violence.

“It’s clear that the more guns you put on the street, in whoever’s hands, the more likely that there will be gun violence,” Miller said. “Allowing citizens to carry guns around does not make society safer.”

Miller said New Jersey has fewer gun-related incidents because the state does not allow permits to carry concealed guns.

To be sure New Jersey has fewer gun-related incidents like this, because New Jersey denies honest citizens the right to protect themselves.  In New Jersey, Mr. Pierce would just be another statistic; just another murder victim.   That would be just fine by Bryan Miller.  It would also be just fine by Patricia McClain-Afford:

Patricia McClain-Afford, co-president of Guns Down, an Easton-based organization, said citizens carrying guns risk injuring themselves or becoming disarmed by a criminal, thus endangering themselves further.

“I just don’t agree with the idea that it’s right for people to get guns to defend themselves, because then the bad guys have guns, the good guys have guns and then everybody’s just shooting at each other,” she said.

Wow, I trembled before the intellectual veracity of that argument.  The fact is that Mr. Pierce is alive because he lives in a state that allows honest citizens the right to have the means to defend themselves.  The system works, even if some people don’t want to accept that.

8 thoughts on “Easton Shooting Debate”

  1. New Jersey actually does issue conceal carry permits, if I remember correctly. However, the applicant has to work in a certain field in order to qualify (jewelers/goldsmiths could theoretically qualify, for example).

  2. It’s is true, NJ does issue them, but you have to show an immediate and urgent need and self defense in not urgent enough. And you know, Bryan is right, if we allow law abiding people to carry a firearm to protect themselves there will be more gun violence, but it will be against criminal scumbags as opposed to against law abiding citizens. I think that we should stop calling Bryan and his freedom hating ilk “gun grabbers”, “freedom haters” etc… and start calling them what they are, “Criminal Protection Advocates”. That is all they want, us disarmed and the criminals armed and protected. That makes he and his the most reprehensible of people.

  3. “then the bad guys have guns, the good guys have guns and then everybody’s just shooting at each other.”

    Ah, the old and tired “shootouts in the streets” argument.
    This whole “bad guys have guns, good guys have guns” thing sounds like something out of the mouth of a 6 year-old.

    I love when people from gun-grabbing nanny-states tout their own gun laws. Camden, Trenton, and Newark are #5, #14, and #22 in the top 25 most violent cities and it’s not all thug-on-thug.

  4. I’m curious. Where do all these criminals get their training on how to disarm people?

    I mean, apparently they’re very good at grabbing the gun and getting it out of your hand without you being able to get off a shot (they wouldn’t do it if it were dangerous). Being that this isn’t something that comes naturally, I assume there are classes that are taught that only gang members and criminals can attend.

    Or do you think it’s all a bunch of hooey and that most criminals, when faced with a loaded firearm, simply run?

  5. The real ironic thing, Robb, is that this criminal was in a perfect position to disarm this guy. The way I understand it happened is the criminal had a gun to his back, and was rummaging through his pockets. He missed the gun the guy had concealed.

    So even in this case, where the conditions were very favorable to the criminal taking possession of the guy’s side arm, it didn’t happen.

  6. Maybe he hadn’t taken that course yet. From what I gather, it’s an intense 6 week course that prepares the common criminal to be not only ninja like in his ability to disarm gun owners, but deftly superior in firearm recognition, shooting skills, and stress inoculation that renders him impervious to being nervous and losing his ability to perform his task.

    Maybe I should have taken this course rather than boot camp at Parris Island.

  7. Gotta love the term, “gun violence”. It makes whatever dishonest thing they’re pushing technically true. True; if there were no guns there would be no “gun violence”, however there would be knife, rock, baseball bat, whatever… violence.
    I think people like Bryan and Patricia engage in magical thinking, wherein you remove the the symbol of evil(gun), and suddenly the spell the evil device has over the thugs is broken. Get rid of the guns, they think, and soon all the homies wil be volunteering at the shelter and tending puppies at the SPCA. They are driven to the panty wetting hysterics, that are their stock in trade, by a belief that all violence is illegitimate. The thought of violence, even to defend themselves, is so disturbing they attempt to make it disappear. The notion that we live in a violent society, where citizens may need to protect themselves is something they would rather not confront.

Comments are closed.