Posts
90 = 17 now, right?
Those are the stated percentage and the actual percentage, respectively, of US weapons found in Mexico.
When I was in school, 90 > 17... in fact, 90 was more than five times 17.
But does the truth actually matter to an anti-gun lobby? Nope. The Big Story is that we need to take guns away from law-abiding citizens because someone, somewhere, is selling them under the table to criminal elements in a failed state.
Must be the same new math that Tim Geithner uses on his taxes.
8 comments:
An article by John Lott written today in light of the tragedy in Binghamton, NY makes another good argument for our right to bear arms.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/03/gun-free-zones-are-a-magnet-for-attacks-like-the-tragedy-in-binghampton/
I agree with the right to bear arms (to a point) but sadly, I have to disagree--I don't think that it would have prevented anything in New York. I'm sorry for the tragedy; it truly breaks my heart--but I don't understand how someone else with a gun would have prevented it.
Chantile - I know this is probably our single biggest difference of opinion, LOL! Here are my thoughts:
While I truly believe that violence generally begets violence, and guns escalate the situation very quickly, the situation was determinedly escalated as soon as that lunatic set his agenda.
The way it would work in an armed society, (which is working pretty well for Switzerland), is this:
1. Lunatic shows up intending rampage.
2. Lunatic begins or attempts to begin rampage, making his threat status absolutely clear.
3. Armed citizen shoots lunatic, limiting casualties to one or two (in addition to lunatic) instead of a dozen.
Yes, it's still a tragedy, and people can still die, but not nearly as many, and as a society, we need not all be cowed in fear of the weapon-wielding lunatic.
Same deal with a (drugged-out, possibly insane) guy beating a toddler to death on the side of the road while FOUR ADULTS SAT THERE AND WATCHED, "HELPLESS." "What can I do? He hit me when I tried to stop him... *sob*" The beating stopped when the cops arrived - with a gun. Unfortunately for that poor child, the effective intervention was minutes too late. An armed citizen (or one with any intestinal fortitude whatsoever) could likely have prevented that child's death.
My take is that I NEVER want to willingly be the helpless one, watching in fear as evil works its will. It's an issue of individual empowerment.
The basic idea of the post, though, is that the anti-gun rhetoric and blaring (, lying) news articles skew the issue for honest, thinking people. All the information we get is "guns are bad, and taking them away is safe," when quite the opposite (most obviously of the latter assertion) is true.
I don't have a problem with people not wanting guns in their home.
I do, however, have a problem with dishonesty in the media.
The realities of gun ownership and statistics in this country do not mesh with the social agenda we've been spoon-fed all our lives. Mass media's skewing of the issue for the sake of a dishonest social agenda (and make no mistake: it's not about safety; it's about power, acquired by disabling citizens and enabling our attackers and those who would drive us as cattle) is what I most adamantly condemn.
When I was in college, I fell pretty hard for the "guns are bad so having less of them available is safer for society" mentality. It just seemed responsible and I was suckered right in. I've never been a person comfortable around guns (I'm still not! I wish they didn't exist to be honest. They make me shudder and get me all nervous) After a lot of study, though, one fact has really stuck with me:
People with an agenda to kill or commit crime will ALWAYS find a weapon to do it! Those type of people don't care about the laws anyway so the laws ONLY END UP RESTRICTING the responsible citizens (the ones who are honest enough to abide by them) from being able to protect themselves.
There are hundreds of stories about armed citizens preventing and stopping crime but we almost never hear about them. Sometimes they don't even have to actually use their gun- it works as a deterrent.
So here's what I've learned:
As much as I hate it, we live in a world with guns and they are never going away. The "bad guys" know how to get them no matter what the law says. So whenever we restrict their access or use through legislation, we're mainly just restricting responsible citizens from using them.
Now there will always be an occasional accident. There are plenty of accidents with automobiles, knives, and water too. Risk is just an inherent part of mortal life. I've got no problem with a required safety class for a gun permit. But much beyond that, as nice as it sounds, is a bad idea.
I've got a healthy respect for not just the letter, but the "spirit" of the constitution (the reasoning behind the text). And I support the parts I like as well as the parts that are harder for me because I know these things were all thought through very carefully. The founders knew human nature. Human nature is constant and predictable, even centuries later.
One part of human nature (especially for our leaders) is to take advantage of a crisis to further an agenda. What happened to just tightening up good old-fashioned border security and strictly enforcing the laws we have? But no, it's always a NEW law that's going to solve everything.
The way that the media is skewing this is sickening.
There is absolutely NOTHING that stricter gun laws will do to end gun violence. All it will do is take away more and more GOOD people's ability to defend themselves. Bad people will always have guns. Good people should have the right to carry them, as well, so that they CAN defend themselves.
There have been some amazing comments on this post so far. I am a city girl that married a cowboy without having the firearm conversation first. We struggled through our first year of marriage to see eye to eye on the topic of guns. The first time I shot one, I cried. But I've come a long way in seeing how the media is totally biased when it comes to guns. http://tinyurl.com/d9e4tu
Unfortunately the majority of the population just believes what they're fed, but upon closer investigation, you don't have to scratch the surface very far to see what type of manipulation is going on behind the scenes.
Additionally, having firearms HAVE helped to prevent violent attacks in the past. Case in point - Appalachian Law School in VA, January 2002. A gunman opened fire on campus and made international news. What the majority of the news stories left out is that two male students had firearms in their cars. These two heroic students ran for their guns and held up the gunman who then dropped his gun and they wrestled him to the ground until the authorities arrived. There is an FBI statistic that states that 5500 crimes are prevented every day by the mere presence of a firearm. http://tinyurl.com/cy64gn
(As a sidebar, is it possible to enable the OpenID sign-in? I'd love to continue commenting on your blog. Thanks!)
Kellene - Thanks for visiting and commenting! I've enabled all registered users (including OpenID) now, so commenting should be easier - thanks again! :-)
Oh - I've also set the comment moderation to kick in at 90 days old, rather than 30. I thought I'd changed that a while ago, but I guess not! Sorry to kick your comment to moderation on only a month-old post, LOL...
Post a Comment