One of the favorite myths of "gun control" extremists is that firearms – and specifically handguns – have no use other than killing people. Obviously, this is not true – an object’s use is entirely dependent upon the intent of the user (and intent is non-transferable ), not the narrow-minded edict of ignorant fools – but not matter how many times the inconsistency is pointed out, those who blame the object rather than the wielder refuse to listen to logic.
I wonder how they are coping with this news report:
Former police officer Chris Willden didn’t hesitate when he realized children were trapped in an upside down car in an icy Utah river. He pulled his handgun, pushed it up against the submerged windows and shot out the glass.
[...]
Highway Patrol Lt. Steve Winward said that after shooting out a window, Willden cut a seatbelt to free one child.
He said the rescuers then helped turn the Honda Accord upright in the Logan River, and lifted it enough to free all three trapped children.
Through a combination of bad conditions and the driver losing control, a car ended up upside down in a freezing-cold river in Utah. At that point, the doors were basically impossible to open due to pressure differentials (Mr. Willden attempted and failed), and since the car was shiny-side-down, attempting to break the glass through "normal" means from the outside (a rock, a carbide-tipped breaker, etc.) was going to be likewise pretty damned impossible. So what if those other eight bystanders had not arrived in time, or at all? Only two of the vehicle’s occupants had escaped injury and found air pockets to breathe – one of the children in the car was still strapped into his car seat, upside down, in the water, with another "floating lifelessly" in the passenger compartment. How much longer do you think they could have lasted?
In the world the anti-rights cultists want to force on us, Chris likely would not have been able to force his way into the vehicle, and probably would have been right about seeing some dead kids that day.
Is this instance, in and of itself, a compelling reason to permit law-abiding citizens to legally bear arms? Of course not; the only reason you need to do that is contained within the question itself (specifically, that the citizens are law-abiding). Is this a defensive gun use? No, not really, given that there was not a predatory threat currently being leveled at the occupants of the vehicle. This incident does, however, wonderfully highlight the life-saving capabilities of tools, such as, specifically, firearms, in the hands of those who are willing to use them and imaginative enough to think outside of arbitrary boxes (such as those imposed by "gun control").
Which is not all that hard, really.
As a famous librarian once said, "Carry your gun – it’s a lighter burden than regret," and, thankfully, Mr. Willden will never have to regret not being able to save those three children he pulled out of the river over the weekend.
(Courtesy of Better Half.)
That was quick thinking on his part. I’m not sure I would have thought of that in time, since using a gun to open things like locks or whatnot is usually dangerous.
And in this mornings paper this story was on page 5 or something and didn’t mention the handgun at all while an AP anti-gun diatribe about guns in National Parks using the blood of the Mt. Rainier Ranger as ink was on the front page. Feh.
Also noteworthy in that Willden also used a pocketknife (one of those other evil “weapons” that the anti-Rights crowd would like to take away from us a la Formerly Great Britain) to cut a seatbelt and free one of the kids. Another thing that “no one needs to carry” yet it was literally a matter of life and death for him to be carrying one that day.
All they are is tools.
The fallacy of “guns are only made for killing” is one in particular that drives me up the wall.
Not only because anti-rights activists use it all the time, but because so many people who are pro-gun believe it to be true as well.
What’s particularly infuriating about it is that it’s so easily refuted with basic facts, and reasonable applications of logical thinking.
Several years ago, Eugene Volokh tore apart the “guns are only for killing” meme on his website, and when such discussions come up, I like to post a link to his short entry on the subject.
http://volokh.com/2002_04_21_volokh_archive.html#75659421
Usually, the people who adhere to that particular fallacy will just completely ignore Volokh’s points, and keep right on with their misinformed line of thinking, but I still feel inclined to tilt at that particular windmill, regardless.
@ Pyrotek85: Oh, there is no question that his actions were dangerous for all involved, but given the alternative, there was no choice.
Still, the man moved decisively and creatively, and God smiles upon those who do.
@ bluesun: Duh. If it bleeds, it leads. No one died in this case, so it did not matter. Of course, if someone had, you can bet it would have been the firearm’s fault, even if they had died of exposure/hypothermia.
@ Jake: Good call! I consider knives to be such a ubuiquitous tool that everyone should have handy on them, I did not even think of those poor, backward countries wherein our hero would be prosecuted for daring to carry such a dangerous “weapon”.
And, just like all tools, they would be useless without the mind to drive them, and their disposition is entirely dependent upon their users.
@ Justin: Ooh, I am definitely going to have to save that link for the future – thanks for sharing! The lumping together of “predatory violence” with “protective violence” has annoyed me ever since I saw Kevin Baker point it out, but that pathetic “argument” fails on even deeper levels too.
@Linoge
Using the pistol the break open the glass while underwater was probably pretty safe given the dampening effects of being submerged. Bullets lose killing velocity pretty quick, as would the glass shards as well. I just admire his quick thinking, I don’t know if that would have occurred to me in time or if I would have been trying to whack it instead.
Oh, I have seen that Mythbusters episode, but there definitely was still an element of danger involved in the action.
Anywise, you and me both. Given how much our society has brainwashed folks into a very narrow set of (supposedly bad-and-evil) activities for which firearms are suitable, I applaud his ingenuity and creativity.
@ Linoge , happy to oblige. The link is short, succinct, and logically sound. It’s one that I keep bookmarked for the times when such a debate comes up.
Additionally, I like to generally point out that only something like 1/10 of 1% of all of the guns in this country* are ever used to take a life, and that those who claim that the only purpose of a gun is to kill must therefore also claim that the other 99.9% of guns in civilian hands are clearly being misused.
*It’s been a good long while since I’ve run the numbers, they may have changed.
And, of course, underscoring all of this argument is the simple truth that intent is non-transferrable. Piano wires are arguably designed to create beautiful music, but if some murdering scumbag uses them to chock someone’s life out of their body, well, that is the intent he, the person imparted into the objects.
“Intended to kill” is a fool’s argument at best, and barely worthy of getting up for.