Anti-gunners routinely trot out people they term as “survivors” of so-called gun violence. These are both people who have been shot or been present at mass shootings, but also family members of murder victims.
These people’s stories are then used to try and push gun control through emotion.
However, a recent interview with the loved one of a murdered UK family reveals something interesting.
The family of a woman who was shot dead by her partner alongside her two daughters in Sussex, say she would still be alive today if gun licensing laws were stricter.
He then turned the gun on himself.
He’d been granted a gun licence despite being diagnosed with depression.
Now Kelly’s family are calling for an overhaul licensing laws. Campaign groups say the system is broken and are calling for more more stringent checks on gun owners.
Robert Needham claimed he purchased the licence so he could shoot rabbits – but Kelly’s stepmother Pam Fitzgibbons said that can’t be true: “A gun that will fire six shots, why do you need that to shoot rabbits?
That’s right. She’s outraged because the killer apparently had a gun with the capacity of a revolver.
Further, the UK has some of the most strict gun control in the world, and it’s still not enough for their anti-gunners, but it’s the words of his survivor that I want to focus on.
This comment is about a small amount of ammunition. She’s questioning his ability to have such a meager capacity, arguing that he didn’t need that for hunting. Sound at all familiar?
The truth is that this is a distraught woman whose world was shattered in an instant–despite the nation’s gun control laws, I might add–and so there’s no way she’s capable of thinking clearly on the subject. Believe me, I know how that goes and can only imagine how much worse her pain must have been.
Yet the media gets her take on guns. Anti-gun groups there will use this as evidence their already stringent system needs overhauling.
Her irrationality won’t be taken into account by literally any of these people. A survivor said this, therefore we must act accordingly.
What if he’d had a single-shot firearm, though? After all, her issue is that this weapon could hold a whole six rounds, so what if it had just been able to hold one?
Does she really think this monster couldn’t have slaughtered all she held dear? It’s not like her daughter had a gun to use to defend herself, after all–and she damn well should have been able to have one.
No, he’d have still killed them if that was his desire. He could have done it without a gun, too, truth be told.
So when we hear survivors talk about how we need gun control so others don’t go through what they did, we have to ask the question as to whether gun control would really have prevented that tragedy. So far, I have yet to see a case where we can really say that it would.