Being Shot Gave This Columbine Survivor Strong Views on Gun Control— Here’s Why He Opposes More

The Blaze ^ | 19 February, 2013 | Billy Hallowell

[marktwain]

Evan Todd will never forget the day that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris burst into Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., intent on killing. How could he? He was the first student shot in the library during a massacre that claimed 12 students and one teacher and went down as one of the worst school assaults in U.S. history.

Since that terrifying day, Todd has been active and open about his views on social and political issues, including gun control. But rather than fight against weapons, he’s been vocal that he doesn’t believe firearms are the culprit. In fact, the survivor is so staunch that he tells TheBlaze he’s come to view gun control as “a theory that creates an illusion of safety, but unfortunately has devastating consequences in reality.” Columbine Survivor Evan Todd

Columbine survivor Evan Todd (Photo Credit: Evan Todd)

Todd is joined by many others like Mark Mattioli, the father of a six-year-old Sandy Hook victim, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, a surviver of the “Luby” shooting massacre in Texas, and Richard Hoover, another survivor of Columbine, who also believe that restrictive policies are not the answer to stopping America’s violent rampages.

[marktwain]

The MSM does not give time to suvivors who do not tow the line!

[TigersEye]

...he’s (Columbine Survivor Evan Todd) come to view gun control as “a theory that creates an illusion of safety, but unfortunately has devastating consequences in reality.”

That is absolutely right. Safety is not the purpose of gun control the purpose is 'citizen control.'

[imardmd1]

The MSM does not give time to suvivors who do not tow the line!

Could you please explain to me what "tow the line" means?

Thanks --

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

It's actually "toe the line," not "tow the line."

[imardmd1]

It's actually "toe the line," not "tow the line."

I don't know if that is the idea of the poster, so that is why I asked him and not others, I am hoping marktwain will answer this question.

But thanks, anyway --

[marktwain]

It should have been “toe the line” but “tow the line” actually works quite well in this case and is inadvertently rather clever, as it indicates active support instead of passive support.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There are multiple (at least two, probably three) thousands of legal gun owners for every one gun murder last year. This places gun ownership squarely in the category of insurance - people don’t legally buy guns to commit illegal violence, they buy guns to avoid being a victim of illegal violence.

Obviously, of course, if there were no guns there would be no gun violence - but let’s be serious about gun control - foreigners are making nuclear weapons and we can’t prevent it. And will our government actually eliminate guns? It cannot and it will not even try. It will try, and generally succeed, in taking guns from those most inclined to be law-abiding, of course - but even if it succeeded, the next frontier would be not gun violence but knife and spear and bludgeon violence.

Although there is certainly such a thing as marksmanship and gun handling skills, gun ownership democratizes violence potential very substantially. Because it is risky to bet your life that someone you took for a mark is not armed with a gun, and because even if you’re an expert shot his or her gun can still seriously wound you, or kill you just as dead as your gun can. Whereas it’s much more problematic to attempt to project an aura of being able to take care of yourself to a thug, and would be even if you knew that the thug didn’t have a gun. Which, as I say, is far, far from assured.

[imardmd1]

There are multiple (at least two, probably three) thousands of legal gun owners for every one gun murder last year. This places gun ownership squarely in the category of insurance - people don’t legally buy guns to commit illegal violence, they buy guns to avoid being a victim of illegal violence.

I like your statement here very much. This way of putting an unarguable thesis on the right to possess and carry deadly arms for personal safety. It makes obvious what the grabbers don't want to admit is the fundamental basis for non-hunting guns, or those which well-serve a dual purpose.

I didn't purchase a .45 ACP handgun to shoot rabbits, deer, or elephants. I bought it to carry on my person just in case.

I did not obtain my M1 Garand to hunt with. I bought it to have in case I feel a need to enforce the second amendment to the Constitution against enemies, foreign or domestic. Sworn by me in 1956, I have been honorably discharged, but never unsworn. I take great comfort in the insurance, which you have pointed out, that a million or more of us can stand together and are once trained and armed to do so.

Anyone who wishes to undo this personally stated right, and states so, is an enemy of mine and of my fellow citizens, and deserves being incarcerated with prejudice.