I usually don’t get as involved in a sensational news story as I did this week following the murders of Eve Carson, the UNC-Chapel Hill student body president, and Lauren Burk, an Auburn freshman. Both girls seem to be similar to me and my friends in so many ways, Eve lived in my town, and I actually saw her just last week at the Eric Drexler lecture I had previously written about.
I have seen some discussion, but of course not from mainstream news outlets, of what actually could have helped prevent these murders. Sure, helping young people by mentoring them and tutoring them could play a role down the line not to become cold-blooded killers, but the only immediate defense that these girls could have had against their killers would have been a gun of their own.
Let me explain.
Thankfully, pictures of Eve’s alleged killer have been released. The suspect in question seems to not only have taken her car but also seems to have actually driven through an ATM and used her bank card while driving the car (this hasn’t yet been confirmed, but you can clearly tell that the car in question is in fact a Toyota Highlander, like the one Carson owned). In the fifth comment seen on this website, “SteveDinMD” comes up with a plausible scenario for what probably happened to Eve Carson.
At first I figured that the killer must simply be an idiot who had killed Eve and then gone to an ATM without her PIN number, or he had figured that her PIN number would be the same as her birthday as it so often is and taken a chance. However, it makes much more sense that she was in fact in the car with him while he went to the ATM, he was perhaps successful, and she tried to escape later, upon which time he shot her as she ran. This explains why blood was found on both sides of the road and possibly why she was shot in the head at close range– the killer could have hobbled her first, then shot her in the head to make sure that she couldn’t testify against him for the carjacking. The area in which her body was found was a secluded street off the main drag which, if followed, leads to Durham, which makes sense considering the buzz that this is the work of a Durham gang member as other shootings in Chapel Hill are.
If it is in fact true that she was carjacked and forced to go to the bank before being shot as she escaped, this is a perfect scenario in which a gun– even one kept in the glove compartment of the car and not actually on herself– could have helped her survive what turned into a kill-or-be-killed situation.
It is true that some rare victims are able to wrestle away an attacker’s gun in a life-or-death situation and shoot or kill him then– however, that’s never a sure thing and it’s best to know what your line of defense will be ahead of time.
Let’s take a look at some recent examples for scenarios in which innocent victims luckily were armed when an armed robber/carjacker attempted to attack them.
“Investigators told Eyewitness News the would-be robber [in Houston] had the tables turned on him when the person he was trying to rob pulled out his own gun and shot the man.”
“The elder Jauregui, who was a police officer in Cuba before the Castro regime, reportedly told police he felt forced to fire because he believed his son’s life was in danger.”
Florentino Jauregui was called the “kindest, sweetest gentleman in the neighborhood” by a neighbor. In that vein, he didn’t want to have to use deadly force, but he had to when his son’s life was being threatened by a madman with a gun, and he did the ultimate “kindest, sweetest” thing when he came to his son’s rescue.
While cases like this do happen, unfortunately too few victims out there are armed and ready when their attackers come. After a gunman attempted to carjack 71-year-old Bobbie Gray, her son Keith came out of the house and shot the attacker. Gray’s husband had some words of warning for future carjackers.
“Marshall Gray, Bobbie’s husband and Keith’s father, warned others to be cautious.
‘Pass the word on,’ he said. ‘You never know the next person you’re going to carjack may have a gun bigger than yours in their car.’”
It’s highly unlikely that any one person will ever be in a situation where his or her life is threatened by a robber or carjacker or mass murderer (despite what the media says). However, there just aren’t enough people who are armed when the odds work against them and they do get attacked. Carjackers don’t yet seem to be afraid of people fighting back because it hasn’t happened on a mass scale. They have a gun, so they figure that they’re invincible. The more people who take matters into their own hands and fight back, the more people will be afraid to commit these sorts of crimes even if they do have a gun.
As shown in the first example above by the Louisiana woman who merely had to show her gun to the carjacker for him to run away, the mere presence of a gun can end the crime right then and there. No shots even need to be fired.
It’s probably also no surprise that young women are targeted for these “economic crimes of opportunity.” There is probably no demographic that is less likely to be armed for protection. Why is that? Maybe it’s not “feminine” or “attractive” or cool or liberal (an important consideration in a town like Chapel Hill) to carry around a gun. Maybe it’s not considered safe. Maybe you’re afraid people will think you’re weird. I have a concealed carry license myself, and I don’t carry around a gun for some of these reasons, so I can’t act like it’s amazing that no one else my age does. However, there is nothing cooler than saving your own life or saving someone else’s, as this “hero teacher” found out.
Another consideration is that guns are banned on the UNC campus. If you’re going off and on to campus, you’d be breaking the law if you had a gun for part of that time, and if you’re a law-abiding citizen you don’t want to break laws and therefore won’t have a gun. However, when has a would-be killer ever decided to turn back when they see the sign that says “Gun-Free Zone”? No, in fact, they know that they’re definitely going to have a lot of unarmed victims to do with what they will. After previous school shootings, some UNC students had pointed this out. Hopefully, some UNC students will also see the wisdom here. Arizona may pass a law allowing concealed weapons on campus after Eve’s shooting.
“But that’s what we have the police for.”
When Eve Carson was killed, the Chapel Hill police were not patrolling the residential neighborhoods where her body was found. The police do their best, but more often than not, they simply are not going to come to your rescue in time. They try to do their best to prevent crime, and they’ll certainly find your body after you’ve been killed and also do their best to try to investigate your murder, but odds are they will not be there to rescue you if you find yourself in this situation. In fact, one of these very police officers now investigating Eve’s murder told me that he wished all civilians would be trained for concealed carry. The police officers know that concealed carry saves lives; it’s time for the public to know this, too.
“The answer to gun violence isn’t more guns.”
Really? Well, what do the police do in response to gun violence, stand there and stare down the bad guys? The kids at Virginia Tech had one option when they were attacked: pretend they were dead. That was their best defense. Their ONLY defense. That’s completely unacceptable.
“If every student is armed, more students will be killed.”
First of all, not every student will be armed, just those who want to be and are trained and licensed for concealed carry (and pass an FBI background check). That means they have to know how to hit a target and attend a gun safety course and be mentally sound. In the 40 states that have concealed carry laws, a lot of innocent people have had their lives saved, and I have not heard of any cases where innocent people were killed due to someone, for instance, waving their gun wildly around or other such nonsense. It would not happen. Even a small percentage of college students being armed could serve as a large deterrent to potential attackers– all it takes is one person with a gun to stop a shooting in progress.
Why would this work?
We know it would work because it has worked. The heroism of the Israeli seminary student who stopped the gunman at his seminary the other day (along with the gunman’s 500 rounds of live ammo) has pretty much been ignored in the American media, but he saved people’s lives by being a trained individual with a gun at the scene of what in America would be a “gun-free zone.”
I listed, above, just a few of the many carjackings that were stopped in their tracks after a victim fought back with a gun. Here is a list of some of the mass shootings that have been stopped by a law-abiding citizen who saved the day by carrying a gun.
- Colorado New Life Church shooting was stopped due to the presence of an armed volunteer security guard who fought back (saving up to 100 lives, according to her pastor). The gunman had 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and 700 people were in the church at the time.
“The heroism of an armed Israeli seminary student halfway across the world sends a message that we needn’t submit to murder in victim disarmament zones. That’s why his actions are getting such short shrift from America’s press. It’s a story they are loathe to report because it affirms a philosophy of self-reliance that they despise.”
Sure, no one wants to have to use a gun to protect themselves. No one wants or asks to be attacked, either. Don’t blame me for saying that people can protect themselves, blame these lunatics who see fit to murder people on campus.
Tags: carjacking, concealed carry, Eve Carson, gun-free zones, Lauren Burk, Yitzhak Dadon, gun, gun control, CCW, Gun Advocacy, Heroes, Jeanne Assam, Self Defense, Shootings, Women and Guns
We have to stop these killers. I wouldn’t feel safe with guns around campus. If we got rid of all guns we wouldn’t have this mess now.
Brian
March 9th, 2008
“If we got rid of all guns we wouldn’t have this mess now.”
We’d have a different mess now. In countries with little access to guns, people who want to kill use knives and bombs instead. In fact, the largest school disaster in American history was a school bombing by a school board member, not a shooting.
Students in Utah are allowed to bring concealed carry guns on campus and no one has reported any problems with that policy.
“I wouldn’t feel safe with guns around campus.”
Neither do I, and that’s why I’d like to get rid of “Gun-Free Zones.” We’d have fewer of these mass shootings and crazy people knowing that schools are a good place to find innocent victims.
libertariangirl
March 9th, 2008
There are other “options” to deal with a school shooting. The students at VT and others who were assaulted by an active shooter could have fought back even if they were not armed. Hiding in a room and waiting for the shooter to arrive is unacceptable. Check out the program at Response Options (www.roseminars.com). It is time we wake up and start teaching people how to survive instead of how to play dead!
Rich
March 10th, 2008
Very good post. I completely agree. More armed law abiding citizens are needed to help fight back against these nutjubs that don’t give a damn about a gun free zone. Our politicians need to abolish the shooting galleries better known as gun free zones.
EvilMidniteBombr
March 10th, 2008
I’m glad you’ve come up with another system, Rich, but has it been used anywhere to fight off one of these lunatics? I gave examples where potential victims were armed and able to fight back successfully; I don’t think I’d necessarily trust another method unless it had been proven successful, unless it was as a backup plan to my method.
libertariangirl
March 10th, 2008
The Houston Astros hat that Eve Carson’s killer was wearing does have a gang affiliation. The “H” logo pays homage to Larry Hoover who was in various incarnations of the Black Gangster Disciples, which he founded. Throughout the 60’s Hoover created alliances and “nations” of gangs in the Chicago area. Lemaricus Davidson, the lead “accused” black slayer of Channon Christian and Chris Newsome was also a BGD– and we know what THAT means–the murder of Eve Carson could not POSSIBLY have been racially motivated–lol.
VIDEO ABOUT Eve Carson-
http://podblanc.com/?q=node/14742
VIDEO about her white-ribboned “memorial”-
http://podblanc.com/?q=node/14842
VIDEO-BLACK GANG DISCIPLES-
http://podblanc.com/index.php?q=node/1769
MORE EVE CARSON VIDEOS-
http://podblanc.com/index.php?q=node/14654
Craig Cobb
March 11th, 2008
Incidentally, I once met an ex-member of the Gangster Disciples out of Chicago who was white. Perhaps this is a different group altogether, or perhaps they’re not racially selective in their membership?
libertariangirl
March 11th, 2008
LG, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact I am quite passionate about this issue.
The people who think getting “rid of guns” is a good idea aren’t giving too much though to how well the bad guys follow laws, including gun bans.
Dan
March 31st, 2008
“We’d have a different mess now. In countries with little access to guns, people who want to kill use knives and bombs instead.”
Not true. Lived in Malaysia where guns are completely prohibited and it’s very SAFE to walk there at night. There is almost no violence. In fact I have been in a few fights with people armed with sticks, and not only survived them but beat them up, it would have been different had they been armed with guns.
Knives and beer bottles are not RANGED weapons.
It’s very easy to pull a trigger so it makes it easier for people to kill.
There are many instances when less than deadly force can be used for self defense. Trigger happy people will use any excuse to kill.
USA is not the same as some country like Switzerland where people are highly civilized. America is a semi civilized country and most people don’t have self control or maturity to be trusted with firearms. In the wild west people killed eachother over petty insults.
James Madison who wrote the second amendment (and all the amendments) has explicitly stated that the they are time specific and should not be taken out of historical context.
The hard truth is that, gun advocates are just trigger happy gun fetishists who are too cowardly and want to have lethal force at their disposal.
Too many incidents of police shooting people by mistake thinking that person is going to pull out a gun, when he was pulling out his key chain or reaching for his vallet.
The main argument Libertarians use in favour of guns is that it gives the Government too much power. A better idea would be to disarm the police the way the English did. Individualism values human life, guns make it too easy to take life. A knife attack can be warded off with a pepper spray or an improvised weapon. Only obtuse cowards who are AFRAID to fight and would kill an animal or a man in cold blood are in favour of guns. Guns create a stiff society where respect is forced out of people by the undeserving under the barrel of a gun. Just because someone has good eyesight and can shoot well doesn’t mean he is smart, or right, or worthy of respect. Like those puffed up cops.
Mr. Kamensky
April 23rd, 2008
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Kamensky. They’re pretty easy to refute.
Malaysia may in fact be very safe at night, but I know that it operates under different legal systems and cultures than the US does– what are the punishments for rape or robbery there? Were there ever that many guns in the first place? If we could get rid of all guns, sure, things might be a bit safer, but my point is that that will never happen. The cat is out of the bag and the gun is out of the range, so to speak, in the US already.
“It’s very easy to pull a trigger so it makes it easier for people to kill.”
That’s what makes them great for personal protection– when a killer or robber takes you by surprise, you can easily retaliate. In addition, the man who just killed eight people in Japan with a knife didn’t seem to have that hard a time, even though it seems like it would be difficult.
“Trigger happy people will use any excuse to kill.”
That is quite true. If they’re so trigger happy, they’ll use a knife or a bomb. What I propose is that law-abiding citizens take classes to learn how to protect themselves. That does not mean they’re trigger-happy; in fact, I’d say they’re the opposite. They’re willing to give up a weekend of their time to learn how to conduct themselves in a safe manner.
Your generalizations about the US are not really even worth addressing. I’m American, but my ancestors are from Switzerland– did that make them uncivilized automatically once they came here? Most people in the US are completely unrelated to the people in the “Wild West,” and what you’re referring to mostly has to do with movies anyway.
Please give a reference for the Madison assertion– I have in fact seen writings by Madison and other attendees at the Constitutional Conventions who specifically referred to language similar to that of the militia, meaning self-defense against oppressive governments as they themselves experienced.
Civilians who want to protect themselves are not trigger-happy police. In fact, give me ONE instance of someone becoming “trigger-happy” while they were carrying a gun for protection (and not for criminal activity). I have never heard of even one incident.
“A better idea would be to disarm the police the way the English did.”
What? Have you been to England? I’ve lived there, and the bobbies carry around guns– large guns. Machine guns, actually. They’re the only ones with machine guns there, and they do have to use them– against people using knives to attack people. The police there are certainly not disarmed.
“Only obtuse cowards who are AFRAID to fight and would kill an animal or a man in cold blood are in favour of guns.”
I’m a vegetarian, so I wouldn’t kill anyone in cold blood– unless they were trying to kill me.
“Guns create a stiff society where respect is forced out of people by the undeserving under the barrel of a gun.”
That’s how it should be– only with the people under the barrel of the gun being criminals who are trying to kill, steal, or harm law-abiding individuals. It’s too bad that it takes that to get rid of crime, but it does. States that have concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than do states that don’t have concealed carry. That speaks for itself.
It doesn’t matter whether someone is smart or right or worthy of respect. If someone is trying to kill them and they have a concealed carry license, they at least have a chance at being alive, and that’s the only thing that counts.
libertariangirl
June 30th, 2008
To illustrate my point about how getting rid of guns will not get rid of killers, look at the news that came out this morning about a man in Shanghai killing five police officers in a police station– with a knife!
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul01/0,4670,ChinaPoliceKilled,00.html
libertariangirl
July 1st, 2008
““A better idea would be to disarm the police the way the English did.”
What? Have you been to England? I’ve lived there, and the bobbies carry around guns– large guns. Machine guns, actually. They’re the only ones with machine guns there, and they do have to use them– against people using knives to attack people. The police there are certainly not disarmed.”
Actually in Great Britain only special police have arms and possibly the Metropolitan Police of London (though I am guessing here at the met).
Police stationed at the Houses of Parliament, airports and other such important places DO carry guns, generally of the semi-automatic type.
On the whole though, the police DO NOT carry weapons other than their “nightstick” or baton and in more cases now stun guns.
Generally “SWAT” or armed response units are called in to deal with situations which require fire power.
In Northern Ireland, at least 7/8 years ago when I lived there, it was different. The everyday street police carried hand guns on an expandable wire, much like on a telephone, connected to their belt.
““We’d have a different mess now. In countries with little access to guns, people who want to kill use knives and bombs instead.”
Not true. Lived in Malaysia where guns are completely prohibited and it’s very SAFE to walk there at night. There is almost no violence. In fact I have been in a few fights with people armed with sticks, and not only survived them but beat them up, it would have been different had they been armed with guns.
Knives and beer bottles are not RANGED weapons.
It’s very easy to pull a trigger so it makes it easier for people to kill.”
Actually, just so you know, it is true. In the UK knife crime has taken a MASSIVE increase over previous yearly figures. We have had about 20 killings since January just in London thanks to knife crime. Remember, there is a difference between indiscriminately killing people and a fight / mugging / retaliation attack where more often than not sticks knives and other things besides guns are used.
Let’s take the example of the guy in Japan. If he had been using a gun and shooting from long range the sound would have been a giveaway of his position and people could run into buildings for protection. If he had been in close range the gun would have been less effective because people would be able to move it easily without fear of being cut.
However, a knife is a silent and deadly weapon attached to a mobile unit. If people decide to run and hide it doesn’t take long for the knife man to run after them and stab them.
Someone with a gun shooting from long range does not have this mobility. If the gun man is close to the targets, much like a knife man needs to be the ranged weapon becomes less effective than knives.
Police and military personnel in the Philippines do not use guns as their primary weapon for close combat situations.
They use something known as Pekiti-Tirsia Kali, or offensive-defence knife fighting. The police and military forces of the Philippines use this style of fighting to bring down criminals and wrongdoers because it is more effective than a gun in close quarters.
Just as a side note I feel compelled to add this.
Following the Dunblane massacre the UK government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership.
That was the law that passed control of guns to criminals and as such only criminals can have them.
There are exceptions to this law though, such as muzzle-loading “blackpowder” guns and pistols produced before 1917.
My favourite exception is this one “pistols of historical interest such as pistols used in notable crimes are exempt”.
This means that the gun used in the Dunblane massacre is of historical interest and as such, even though it was the gun that caused the change in the law, it is legal because it is exempt due to the historical nature of it. lol
This exception, “pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns)” means I am going to buy a Glock 19, encrust it with diamonds and then go around shooting people because it is legal. /sarcasm.
Even Britain’s Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, or abroad.
That goes to qualify my statement that, police in NI carry guns but the police in Great Britain don’t.
(Remember that the official title of where I live is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. Unfortunately only the 3rd longest country name in the world!
www.runningrabbits.net
July 1st, 2008
I stand corrected on the police. But they are not totally unarmed.
That is very interesting about the loophole in gun law allowing for historical guns… makes the entire thing just for show (as we know it is in the first place.)
libertariangirl
July 29th, 2008