Volume of Evidence Shows Guns SAVE More Lives

(Quin Hillyer, Liberty Headlines) As can be expected in the wake of any mass shooting, the American debate over gun rights has heated to and maybe beyond the boiling point in the days since Sunday night’s mass murder in Las Vegas.

22-Year-Old Usher with a Handgun Stops Church Shooter 1

Emanuel Kidega Samson/PHOTO: Metro Nashville PD via Twitter

One difference this time, though, is that a very recent example of a man using his gun rights to stop a mass murder is serving as a catalyst for other crime victims to tell their own stories of how their guns saved rather than squandered lives. Another is support, from an unexpected source, for the idea that gun control laws are counterproductive.

For the first example, as reported here at Liberty Headlines, it was just two weeks ago that a church usher used his own permitted firearm to hold at bay a Sudanese immigrant who was attempting mass murder in a Tennessee Church of Christ. Police described 22-year-old usher Robert Engle as “extraordinarily brave” for his actions in stopping the murderer.

PREVIOUSLY: 22-Year-Old Usher with a Handgun Stops Church Shooter

Again and again on Twitter feeds, people all across the country cited that Sept. 24 church incident as arguments against those trying to use the Las Vegas mass murder as an excuse for radical gun control.

And those Twitter posts often spurred others to Tweet about how gun possession saved their own lives or those of loved ones in all sorts of incidents. Conservative blogger/columnist Bethany Mandel, for example, Tweeted about the time her mother used a gun to stop a home intruders.

“It was the [mere] sight of [the gun] that stopped the intruders,” she wrote.

Among the countless others who Tweeted similar stories was the guy who wrote (with his emphases preserved below): “My life has been saved by a gun, when all I WANTED was to buy a bottle of wine I NEEDED a gun when 3 men pulled knife.”

Of course, those who pay attention know of all the statistics showing that law-abiding gun owners save immense numbers of lives each year. This includes significant examples of mass shootings stopped by responsible gun use. In Chicago a year ago, an Uber driver used his gun to stop a mass shooting on a busy sidewalk. Also in Chicago, two months before that, an ex-military man with a permit felled a gunman who had been shooting at people leaving a party.

Then there were the cases of a Dallas gun owner stopping a mass bar shooting, another mass bar shooting stopped in South Carolina, and the ending of a shooting spree at Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law.

PREVIOUSLY: Heroic Teacher Subdued Shooter in Illinois School Shooting

Nonetheless, the predictable public debate raged on, with Slate, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post all featuring pieces in favor of gun control while National Review, the Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator all sporting thought pieces trashing the pro-gun-control arguments.

What was not expected was the liberal Washington Post running a column by a statistician who wrote that she began her gun studies convinced that “gun control was the answer,” but whose research “told me otherwise.”

Here’s what writer Leah Libresco reported (emphasis added):

“My colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”

And she blasted “policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.”

Libresco’s research, of course, only adds to a growing body of evidence, starting with John R. Lott Jr.’s groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime that gun control laws don’t reduce, and maybe even increase, violent crime.

None of it stops the organized Left, of course. Late this week, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she really does hope that a new law banning gun “bump stocks” is just the first step on a “slippery slope” towards widespread, comprehensive gun control.

Second Amendment? What Second Amendment?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberty Headlines

  • Rolpho Signetti

    So if I walk down the MEAN STREETS of Chicago in the middle of the night… which is my right. What do you think would make me feel safer? A liberal law that they know is better for me. Or, a loaded 45?

    Just asking…

  • 27633171

    ” Volume of Evidence Shows Guns SAVE More Lives “. Since when does the volume of evidence mean anything to the Socialist Democrats ? These people are not concerned with a criminal with a gun. They are concerned with American citizens with a gun because that poses a danger to their ability to impose their Socialist agenda. The 2nd Amendment was not put into the Constitution to protect the right to hunt and it wasn’t put in to protect the individual from the average criminal. It was put in to protect the citizen from a tyrannical government, the kind that they had just fought a war to free themselves from. The other reasons are secondary to the true purpose but unfortunately most of our citizenry have been so brain washed that they have forgotten how easily their own government can succumb to the rule by tyrants.

    • kep

      You are mistaken about the socialist democrats. The Democratic Party has become the new Amerikan Communist Party. Khrushchev said that the Communists would take America by slowly feeding us bits of socialism until we fully embraced Communism. Liberals are those infiltrators that came to America to undermine our way of life during the cold war. They are fulfilling Khrushchev’s promise. Liberals should be deported or jailed as terrorists.