PROGUN Statement on the Aurora Colorado Shooting incident

The Peaceful Responsible Owners of Guns (PROGUN) condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack on innocent movie goers at Aurora Colorado by a deranged gunman. We condole and sympathize with the victims of this henious crime.

This was clearly an act of a madman since no person in his sane mind would do such an act. In this sense insane and unstable people will always act in an insane and unstable manner, regardless if they get hold of a kniffe, a car, a bomb, of in this case a gun. So the root cause of the problem is really social, moral, educational, and a criminal justice and law enforcement issue. That is why in PROGUN we do our part to EDUCATE gun owners in the proper ethical, and responsible use of firearms. We also support legal firearms sales only to qualified persons with no mental instability or criminal history. Consequently, even if we do get these isolated tragic shooting incidents periodically, our track record of policing our own ranks among gun owners here in the Philippines is very good to excellent: less than 1% of all crimes involving firearms in the Philippines involve licensed firearms, as per the statistics of the Philippine National Police. Most importantly in its 32 years of existence since 1990, no PROGUN member has ever been found to have miused or abused a firearm in any untoward incident. 

While we mourn the dead and injured, we likewise deplore the cheap moves of those who would want to impose further regulations on guns. Already the pundits in the leftist mainstream media, Anti-Gun lobbyists, and politicians are riding on this incident as a cry for further gun restrictions. We oppose such views and proposals. An isolated act of a madman in the USA should not adversely affect the rights of millions of other responsible gun owners and sportsmen around the world who had nothing to do with the incident. Rather, security and law enforcement must improve itself if we want to prevent further incidents like this tragedy from happening again. Moreover, the criminal justice system should ensure that the victims and their families get justice.

Comments

This is what happens when you

This is what happens when you declare so called " gun free zones" and become strict with law abiding citizens who carry firearms even if they have the appropriate carry permit. Perps who are determined to carry out their vicious acts always finds a way to circumvent security measures in place, case in point, the tragic shooting mentioned above. I firmly believe that if there was even one armed law abiding citizen with a CWP inside the theater, the death toll and number of injured victims would not be that high. They were all sitting ducks since the only armed person there was the gunman. Individuals or Insitutions who declare their areas as gun free zones ahould be held personally and criminally liable in the event that such an incident should take place. I believe that when the owner/s or management of an establishment prohibit law abiding citizens with proper carry permits from bringing in their firearms inside their establishment, it is only reasonable to expect that they should take full responsibility in ensuring the safety of each and every person who enters their "gun free" zone. Same goes for the government, if they impose laws that limit the places wherein law abiding citizens can carry their firearms, the government should be held accountable if something bad happens in these places. I don't think it's right to disarm law abiding citizen, in effect taking away their means to defend themselves, and then refuse to take personal responsibility for their safety and well being; THAT SIMPLY IS NOT RIGHT!  

No such thing as a Gun free zone

In short, there is no longer any such thing as a "gun free zone." Places and establishments where we are compelled not to bring inside guns for self-defense are the very same stablishments where deranged criminals are allowed to enter by the owners and who are thus able to massacre innocent people. I agree that the owner of the establishment is likewise to blame for this incident. The gunman was carrying a long AR-15 rifle plus several bombs and a shotgun. The perp was also dressed in body armor "from head to toe", according to witnesses. Hence, how in the world was he able to buy a ticket to enter and how was he allowed to enter the movie establishment with all that hardware and dressed like that? Common sense would have dictated that at the entrance, alarm should have already been sounded, and the police called. Negligence is also attendant in this case whereby there was no security for the establishment, which is practically unheard of these days. In which case, had the gunman been stopped at the entrance, as he should have been, lives would have been saved.

Rather than call for more restrictions, government should in fact be more liberal in allowing licensed CCW holders to carry their pistols with them, at all places and at all times, because as we have seen here and in numerous other shooting incidents, crime does not choose a place or time to strike; crime coulr strike anywhere. This was the lesson learned from the Luby's Cafe Massacre in 1991 and the message that was proclaimed by a survivor of that incident, Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. 

In contrast

In stark contrast to the Aurora, Colorado shooting incident wherein 12 people died, a few days earlier in Florida a 71 Year old senior citizen foiled an armed robbery and a similar tragedy with his concealed .380 pistol, which proves that the judicious use of firearms in the hands of a determined citizen, saves lives.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8&feature=related

The proof of the pudding...

He pulled out a weapon in an enclosed space with a number of innocents around. I can't help but question his judgment. And at the same time... WOW. 

But in the end, the facts remain and we're forced to give the gentleman the benefit of the doubt and assume he had the skills; after all, he was able to wound both criminals and no one else was hurt. I just wish that more information was provided that could prove that he had the skills and training behind the decision to engage inside such a risky environment. 

All I'm sure of is that I wouldn't have done it. Not enough skill, too many innocents. 

Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. :)