Terrorists Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

Yep, that’s what the mayor of Chicago recently said about the terrorist attack at Ford Hood.   Is there no end to liberal lunacy?  I suppose that bombs were responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center (1993) and that planes were responsible for 9/11, too.  And ooh, ooh, boats were responsible for the attack on the USS Cole.  This is good news, though, because it makes America a wonderful place again.  All those things the left hate about America weren’t OUR fault.  Nuclear weapons are to blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and napalm was responsible for Vietnam.  This probably extends to Hitler, too, right?  Ovens and poisonous gas were responsible for the Holocaust?   Give me a freakin’ break.

We know damn well what was responsible for the Fort Hood shootings:  a maniac, fanatic Muslim bent on murdering, in cold blood, unarmed members of the United States military (the unborn baby was probably a yummy bonus for this . . . words fail me, he’s a wretched excuse for a human being), and he was bent on doing it because of his radical Muslim beliefs.  We know that.  It’s fact. 

This has to stop.  And stop fast.  This liberal black and white view of the world is going to get more people killed.  For all the blather on the left about “nuance,” they can’t seem to see any.  If a radical fundamentalist Christian bombs an abortion clinic in an act of domestic terrorism, then all of Christianity is suspect, all signs of God and Christian faith have to be wiped off the face of the earth.  All Christians, and by curious extension all conservatives, are fundamentalist nutjobs about to bomb an abortion clinic.  Absurd.  Equally absurd is ignoring the fact (and it is a FACT) that radical Muslims have openly declared war on Americans (and other westerners).  They want us dead.  That’s why they kill us whenever and wherever they get a chance.  That’s not an accident.  9/11 didn’t “just happen.”  Those buildings didn’t “fall down”–they were knocked down by radical Muslims bent on destroying as much as they could and killing as many Americans as they could.

Ignoring this fact, burying our head in the sand, is not the answer.  This is obviously (or it should be obvious that it is) not to say that all Muslims are radical fanatics, we know they are not.  That’s just as absurd as painting all Christians with a fundamentalist brush.  But we do have to, we HAVE to, react to red flags, the clear warnings of imminent danger.  You know, like some loser saying that Muslims need to kill American soldiers and that we are “aggressors” whose death he delights in, even if . . . no, especially if that loser is a member of the United States Army (or any branch of the military).

Being afraid to say what it is, to investigate and to act led to the murder of those 13 people (14, actually, as one of the victims was pregnant–h/t Michelle Malkin).  Those people would be alive today if someone somewhere had pulled their head out of their politically correct arse and put a stop to it, booted him out of the military, given him a one-way ticket to wherever his terrorist buddies are hanging out, and washed their hands of him.  Okay, that wouldn’t happen (though it would be nice if it did), but why not just kick him out of the military and keep his terrorist butt under constant and vigilant surveillance.

If you want to play games with semantics then that monster didn’t kill those people, the people who let him slide by because he’s Muslim and they were afraid to seem politically incorrect most certainly did.  The guns he used . . . just weapons.  He could as easily have bought a bunch of nail polish remover or whatever those whackjobs use to build home-made bombs and done the same thing.  Funny how we hear all the time about terrorists killing people all over the world  . . . usually without guns, but does the weapon of choice really change the fact that they are terrorists?

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Terrorists Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

  1. That first paragraph was outstanding! Radical Islam is a threat that we need to be more honest about. I, however, think we have an even bigger threat (both from without and from within)from global socialism.

  2. Good morning Fuzzy Slippers!

    Now I totally accept your point that guns don't go out and kill people all by themselves – unless there's some technology that I don't know about. But there is no question that the USA tops the charts for gun-related deaths/homicides:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    Now I know, and you know, that Americans are no more violent or immoral than Britons (in fact if you read some blogs you'd be forgiven for believing that the UK is a seething cauldron of violence and depravity – not true BTW), yet the stats speak for themselves.

    There is an “association” between gun availability and gun homicide rates – how you reduce the latter whilst keeping the former is up to the US to work out …. but it surely needs to be addressed?

  3. Thanks Trestin! I agree that we need to worry about global socialism (and right here at home, too). I'm not sure how I'd prioritize the two as see them as somewhat related. I think it's possible to tackle both at once, though.

  4. Good morning Cambridge Lady! What a lovely breath of fresh air you are 🙂 I must say, before I say anything else, that I very much appreciate your approach to disagreement. So constructive and thoughtful debate is very very welcome.

    Okay, let's look at the logic here. If I want to argue that ice cream makes people fat, I will look at the statistics of fat people who eat ice cream and then declare that I've won. This approach, of course, dismisses the other things these fatties are eating and all of the skinnies who slurp up gallons of ice cream and don't gain an ounce (the bahstids!), the people who eat ice cream in moderation and couple it with exercise, or people who binge and purge.

    If we look at global homicide statistics (per capita, of course) and by any means–not just guns, then the picture that emerges is slightly different than looking at American homicide rates that are “firearm related” (this of course includes suicides and accidents) and declaring that guns are obviously the problem.

    Here is a link to the U. N. list of homicides around the world, per capita: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

    As you can see, the United States has 5.9 per 100,000; whereas, the United Kingdom has 6.6 per 100,000.

    Guns may be the weapon of choice in the U. S., but we don't hold the lead in homicides (nor does the UK, not by far, but if you add up the rates for England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, as I feel you must to reflect an accurate calculation for the UK, then the UK scoots right up the list). Again, the weapon doesn't make much difference. If killers couldn't readily obtain a firearm, they'd do what they do in the UK (whatever that is? strangulation? stabbings? running people over with cars? poison? beating with blunt instruments? I'm not sure,) where even with stricter gun laws, the rate of homicide over there surpasses ours.

    What plans does the UK have to crack down on rope or garrotes, cars, poison, cricket bats, and kitchen knives? See my point? Gun availability doesn't increase homicide, it simply increases the number of gun-related deaths. Eliminate the guns, and someone bent on murder will simply find other means. And leave people who can legally obtain firearms unprotected (how many of those “gun-related deaths,” for instance, were self-defense? or police who were protecting citizens?).

    By the way, guns scare the crap out of me, and I don't have one, wouldn't have one. I'm just laying out the logic here. I support our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It IS our right to do so. Or not.

  5. You can't add up rates – ie England + Scotland + NI etc – they are rates per 100,000. You have to average them (weighted for population of course). I wouldn't include NI in any case – the “troubles” still bubble under and these raises the homicide rate for the UK.

    BTW where do you live? You are up very early in the morning 🙂

  6. It's rate per 100,000 people in these countries, so yes, you can add them up. It's not a percentage, in which case it could not be added up (as you say).

    Well, if you don't want to include NI on the grounds that there is trouble there that raises the rates for the UK, then I hereby declare that we won't include New Orleans, Baltimore, Washington D. C. (which isn't even a state, btw), and Detroit. :p

  7. Just to illustrate what I say above:

    If State A has 100,000 people and 3 murders the murder rate is 3 per 100,000

    If State B has 200,000 people and 8 murders the murder rate is 4 per 100,000

    Overall (A & B) the murder rate is 11 per 300,000 or 3.66 per 100,000

    Violent crime is on the increase in the UK, especially knife crime, and does need to be tackled.

    Taking guns off Americans won't work because only the good people will obey the rules, the criminals will keep them. We have different histories but if you could start again would you want everyone to have the right to bear arms?

  8. And NI is very very different to the rest of the UK – I don't think any of your states have been fighting a war to try and secede from the Union?

    Anyway it's not about points-scoring, it's about wanting the best for all people and debate is a good way to work out strategies to improve things.

    All good wishes xx

  9. You're forgiven 😉

    I'd say the rate for England and Wales is pretty representative as those countries make up about 50m of the UK's 60m population. So the rate is 1.6 per 100,000 (maybe a little more, say 1.8, if you factor Scotland in)

    Even NI on its own has a rate less than that of the USA – 2.4 per 100,000

    Many countries have appalling homicide rates haven't they? Quite shocking. Thanks for this link.

  10. Well, we did have this little bust-up called the Civil War, but other than that, just the odd time or two when Texas has threatened to secede (as well as, as you noted over at LL's some fanatics wanting to secede in Oregon and Washington state), but these latter things didn't result in violence or war.

    Sure, I agree that it's not about points-scoring, but it is rather important to consider all of the factors that contribute to “gun-related” deaths, don't you think? And to look at the over all picture of homicides by all means.

    I just don't think that looking at “gun-related” deaths in isolation is at all useful to any discussion of gun use or rights of the American people to keep and bear arms. It provides an inaccurate and incomplete picture, and no decision, big or small, should be made on inaccurate and incomplete information if at all possible (this we saw with the War in Iraq very very well).

  11. I agree there's a much bigger picture here. Good people don't shoot others even if they have 100 guns in the house. Equally Britons are not “better” than Americans because the homicide rate is lower. It's incredibly complex and a fascinating discussion to have. Sadly I must go now as lunch beckons ….

    You should have some breakfast! Take care and have a great day xx

  12. “Terrorists Don't Kill People, Guns Kill People
    Yep – that's what the mayor of Chicago recently said about the terrorist attack at Ford Hood….”

    Ironically enough, IT is EXACTLY the reverse!

    Weapons are inanimate objects and they DON'T kill people, but ideologies DO!

    The serial killer's “becoming” and the jihadist's “spiritual transformation” via violent jihad” are the IDEAS that trigger the use/abuse of inanimate objects.

    But this isn't merely “wrong,” the use of this canard is calculated.

    Did you hear such tripe after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building?

    Of course not!

    In fact, did you notice the record time in which McVeigh's execution was carried out?

    He was literally air-mailed to the death chamber.

    Perhaps because of the “Third Terrorist” connection researched and written about by Jayna Davis (http://www.amazon.com/Third-Terrorist-Connection-Oklahoma-Bombing/dp/0785261036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258029677&sr=8-1)

  13. Lost in the statistics are the times firearms are used without being discharged. As a young boy I watched my grandmother chase away a man who was beating his girlfriend to the point where she was unconscious. She had tried to escape by jumping out of his car at the end of my Grandparents driveway, my brother and I could only watch horror when he got out and viciously began beating her. My grandmother came charging out of the house rifle in hand yelling “you get off of her!” The man continued the attack on the young woman until he saw the rifle, at that point he immediately fled. The police were called – it only took them an hour to get there… It turned out that the man had a long history of violence against women had my grandmother been unarmed, she too would likely have become a victim.

    Another fact that is often overlooked is who these gun violence perpetrators and victims are. An overwhelming majority are felons – which by the way are already prohibited from legally possessing or using firearms. If you aren't a felon, using illegal drugs, cheating on your spouse or associating with those types your chances of being murdered or injured with a firearm are very low.

  14. @ JMK, yes, I know what you mean. It's pathetic and sad. And very dangerous to have this degree of absolute bull-headedness in facing the obvious.

    @ Mo, absolutely right! Guns can be deterrents to crime, and it's funny you brought this up because I just read an article by Ann Coulter about this topic. She was relating how someone had tried to mug her (they didn't, some passing stranger helped her out) and then launched into a discussion of the deterrence of armed citizens. As you say, it's the criminals who are armed, usually illegally, and if they thought there was a good chance their potential victim was armed, the odds are that they wouldn't risk it. I'm not a fan of personal gun ownership, but I have no problem at all with others exercising their Constitutional right. Funny how few liberals say that . . . about anything. It's not for me, but you go ahead. Nope. It's not for me, so I'm going to make sure no one else can have it, do it, eat it, drive it . . . . Ugh. Is it 2010 yet? 😉

  15. It's not for me, so I'm going to make sure no one else can have it, do it, eat it, drive it . . . .

    or even worse, “it's ok for me, but you shouldn't be able to have it, do it, eat it, drive it…” that really pisses me off when i hear that sort of crap.

  16. Gavin de Becker, who is a workplace violence threat assessment consultant for companies wrote a book whose title says it all: The Gift of Fear. As you can surmise, his message is PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT TRIGGERS YOUR FEARS!!! …and by my own extension, to hell with political correctness.

  17. @ Candelabro, thanks!

    @ Kerry. Yes, that's enough to make anyone crazy, and both sides do this quite a bit. There is no way in hell that Congress itself would ever take the government option for healthcare; they're special and so much better than us. Pelosi won't be on it, but she damn sure wants to make sure that every American is (or they can go to jail for 5 years. Nice.).

  18. @ Velcro, yep, I'm done with political correctness. One hundred percent done with it. I don't give a damn what anyone thinks, and I will not be silenced any longer. Lives are, literally, at stake. Our liberty, our Constitution, and our country are, literally, at stake.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s