Today on Blogcritics
Home » Gun Saves Life

Gun Saves Life

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook1Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Are you ready for this? I bet this isn’t a story you’ll see covered by the major networks for long. Why? It’s a situation where someone with a gun saved someone else’s life. They usually have a tendency to cover the bad things that people do with guns and then blame the event on the gun or the NRA so that they can get more support for gun control.

Anyway, seventy-two year old Due Moore shot and killed a man who was stabbing his ex-wife, Joyce Cordova.

Due Moore had a gun with him, saw someone attacking another person, and shot him at least three times. Now, where are the people who insist that guns are the problem? The gun was not the problem in this situation. It saved someone’s life. If Moore hadn’t been there, Cordova would have probably been a bloody mess on the floor. Perhaps she should have kept a gun herself.

How would this event played out in an area with a gun ban, or strict gun control?
Maybe like this:

Man starts stabbing ex-wife.
Once ex-wife is dead, she could call the police to arrest her ex-husband for killing her. It’s a genius plan! He wouldn’t expect that.
Man spends life in prison with free food, clothes, Cable TV, and maybe even a 2600 subscription, all paid for out of my wallet and yours.

More information about what happened here.

By Abelardo Gonzalez

Powered by

About Abbie Gonzalez

  • JR

    Guns don’t save lives, people save lives.

  • Phillip Winn

    JR — hilarious!

  • Victor Lana

    Ex-husband: “Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?”

  • RJ

    Guns are useful tools. Like any tool, they can be misused.

    But when they are misused, wise people blame the individual, rather than the tool.

    Do we blame cars and automakers for vehicular homicide? No. So why would any rational person blame guns and gun manufacturers when some filthy criminal commits a crime with a gun?

  • rob

    ummm yes.

    We do blame cars and car makers for car related deaths. If we didnt then why do we have mandatory seat belts, air bags, speed limits, registration, road worthiness checks etc. Its because without them CARS cause more deaths. Sure drivers, just like gun owners, play a large part as well, but that doesnt mean you dont try to have sensible car/gun control in place. i think we forget that not all gun deaths are “some filthy criminal committing a crime” many result from poor storage, poor maintenance, ammunition storage etc. these deaths are the ones that better gun control can prevent.

  • Jason

    “We do blame cars and car makers for car related deaths.” Rob Rob Rob….

    When was the last time Carol Shelby was accused in the death of someone rolling their Cobra… Or the child that was killed by a rolling car after the parent neglected to engage the emergency brake. Never, The reckless driver was intoxicated, or speeding. The child released the e brake, or ran behind the car. I might be wrong, but I dont think so……

    Better gun control does not have a bearing on upkeep, storage, or the like. These are left to the education of use, otherwise known as “Gun Safety”. Gun Control is across the board a series of barriers to deprive the public the ability to possess firearms, more specific handguns. This is an attempt to give law enforcement the upper hand in most all situations. (*I DO feel that there are models of firearm that should be removed specifically those dubbed as “Hand-Cannons” but that is another rant.*) The bottom line is Gun Control as it was immidiately after the Reagan Hinckley attempt, as to not sell guns to felons/ violent criminals and to require a waiting period and notice if the individual tries repeatedly to buy a weapon therby raising a flag “Why does this person need a weapon today?” Gun Control laws are not going to keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals, but they will keep them out of the hands of those law abiding citizens in need of defending themselves accordingly.

  • Abbie

    Jason: Good point. :)

  • Tim


  • http://rizzlemynizzle alpha kenny won

    guns save lives

  • BOB

    Guns Don’t kill people, Husbands that come home early do

  • andrew

    i think guns are a tool. if people didnt know how to work them, they would still be the same. it doesnt matter if people kill others. its not the guns killing people. its the people making conscience decisions. but hey, accidents happen. cops might aim for a leg and accidently hit the heart. the wind might take a warning shot and blow it in someones direction. thats a risk thats taken. As long as its a sincere accident then its a risk worth taking. but my question is.. who has the right to destroy human life? and actually think about that question. dont just answer half heartedly. really think.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Thanks for making this story known. These kinds of stories are common but are not repeated often enough. Remember, police do not have a duty to protect you, it’s your responsibility. Don’t believe me?

    WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. “

    If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. The police have enough of a job to do to enforce the laws – after they are broken. For the left to take away our constitutionally given right to protect ourselves and our property is just the first step to becoming wards of the state. Forget that. I’ll be over here with my guns.

  • Dr Dreadful

    It may not be a constitutional duty, but I would like to see police put more emphasis on the ‘protect’ part of the motto you see some variant of on most patrol cars. Or if practical protection is better left to private citizens and security firms, at least put more effort into crime prevention.

    (Cops do already perform this role to some extent: for example, you’re driving on the freeway and you suddenly realize that everyone is doing exactly 65mph… guess who’s in the fast lane!)

    They do have an important investigative role in which they are highly specialized, true, but actually enforcing the laws after they’re broken would seem to be the proper province of the courts rather than the police. And it’s a sad truth that many crimes are investigated in a very perfunctory manner, if at all.

    I must say that I think commenter #1’s turnabout of the gun lobby’s favorite slogan is particularly neat and pointed.

  • The Obnoxious American


    How would the Police do that, or more importantly, what would they do? What laws would they incarcerate the would-be felon with? No one can know the contents of the heart of man, and thus, no one should go to jail for intending to do something, but rather for having done it.

    Aside from perhaps giving the would be assailant a stern talking to (which most cops would already do within the limits of the civillian review boards lording over them), the idea that a cop would emphasize the “protect” part of their slogan (which btw has absolutely no real connection with their actual job) sounds really good on paper, until you think about how it would actually work in practice.

    I would much rather prefer that we teach the people to be empowered and how to protect themselves. Rather than fear guns, let’s demystify them, teach folks how to use them, and more importantly, teach folks how to diffuse tense situations.

    I have faith in my fellow man. I think most men have good in their hearts and if we trust them with the power to defend themselves, they will use it wisely. And if there are a few who do not use their power responsibly, then other men who also have this power will be able to stop them. Freedom.

  • roger nowosielski

    In a sense, he’s right, Doc. Though “offering protection” is one of the main reasons and justifications in political theory for forming “a state” – and it’s a distributive right (insofar that even those who can less afford it, through taxation, are entitled to an equal measure – the matter of “offering protection” is commonly understood not as a peremptory measure but restricted rather to “after the fact” events (whether by way of such things as awarding compensation, adjudication, the according of punishment, and so forth).

  • Dr Dreadful

    Obnox, who said anything about locking potential felons up or in any way infringing their right to due process? There are plenty of other ways to prevent and deter crime.