Guns: The Defenseless Shouldn’t Be Defenseless

Like everyone else, I’m deeply saddened (how trite that sounds, but it’s what I feel) by the horrific massacre of 6 and 7 year old children, as well, of course, as the adults who sought to protect them.  This was a horrible horrible tragedy.  (Why do I feel like I have to spew platitudes?  They don’t feel like platitudes, but even as I type them, they sound like empty crap that I need to say to get to my point.  This is one thing about blogging that is sometimes difficult for me.  I genuinely feel terrible, so sad and overwhelmed, by the Connecticut shooting, but it’s not something I generally feel comfortable talking about . . . if you know what I mean.  Anyway. . . . )

So of course the lunatic left is calling for yet another ban on guns, yet another law that they hope will make crazy people not crazy.  Uh huh.  How about we let any teacher or school admin/staff—or anyone else–who is licensed to carry a gun actually carry one?  That’s the sort of gun law that would actually help in these situations.  As with the shooting at the Batman movie in Colorado, these adults were sitting ducks, without any means of defending either themselves or the tiny children in their care.  That is the travesty here.  No lone gunman should be able to stand there and shoot unarmed people–stopping to reload, for goodness’ sake!–with zero fear that they will, themselves, be shot dead on the spot.

You want to talk deterrent?  Armed citizens . . . that’s a deterrent.

Sure these cowardly shooters tend to be suicidal; that’s why they kill themselves before they can be apprehended when law enforcement finally shows up . . . usually just to carry the bodies away and then document the crime scene.  I’m not knocking law enforcement here, by the way.  What else are they supposed to do?  They just can’t be everywhere all the time.  But you know who is everywhere all the time?  Average American citizens who have and know how to use guns.  These are the people who can–and have–stopped these sorts of massacres in which one man guns down unarmed people.  How many of these suicidal lunatics would be so eager to go on a shooting spree if they knew that their intended victims would shoot back?  How many shooting rampages happen in police stations?

Oh, sure, these shooter types are nuts.  Of course they are, they’d have to do something like that.  But they are “sane” enough to plan ahead, to shoot themselves after they’ve achieved whatever their goal, to write about their plans on Facebook (or wherever), to destroy the hard drives on their computers . . . .  If they are sane enough to manage that, then they’d definitely think twice before embarking on a shooting rampage in which the targets actually shoot back.

And so, again, we come to the screams for gun control and bans.  You know who turns in their guns when governments demand them?  That’s right, law-abiding citizens who (shocker!) obey the law.  You know who does not give one fig about the law?  The lawless.  Criminals.  And those are the people who would violate a gun law just as they violate laws against . . . oh, you know, shooting people.  So a gun ban leads to criminals being the only ones with guns.  And law enforcement, who let’s face it, arrive after the fact.

Obviously, I’m not advocating that everyone be trained in the use of fire arms and licensed to carry, but everyone who wants to be certainly should be allowed to (hard to believe I have to even say that).  When was the last time there was a shooting rampage at a gun show?  Oh, never?  Uh huh.  The people there, as at a police station, would be armed–and able–to put an immediate stop to it.  Criminals, including the criminally insane, are smart enough to go where they won’t be shot.  At Fort Hood, for instance, the terrorist just stood there shooting military personnel because they were (this still blows my mind) not permitted to carry guns on base.  You know who stopped him?  Of course, an armed person.

In every case where the shooter didn’t manage to kill himself or to commit “suicide by cop,” he was stopped by a person with a gun.  And yes, this happens all the time, but we don’t hear about it because the media doesn’t like to “glorify” guns.  But guns save lives (even if they cost a hero his job . . . .  Actually, I had this case in mind, but it apparently happens quite often.  Fired from your job for protecting yourself and your employer’s store.  Nice.).

So another angle that is coming up is that this guy, like many of his cowardly shooting-at-defenseless-people ilk, was a loner.  And strange.  And anti-social.  Uh huh.  So are some of my dearest friends.  Being a loner or strange or anti-social does not make a person a would-be murderer.  Most of the people I know who are loners, strange, and anti-social are actually leftists, and in a way, this makes sense.  Leftists don’t actually like people, they just like to pretend they do . . . you know, in the abstract.  But that doesn’t mean they’re all about to “go postal.”  They have their own ways of dealing with their issues, and usually, they don’t actually harm others.  At least not directly.

But I digress.  Apart from the calls for new gun restrictions and bans, there is a lot of talk about how video games make people “desensitized” and potential killers.  Oh for frak’s sake, this is just nuts.  Like when heavy metal music made people shoot people.  Uh huh.  What is wrong with these leftists who keep sticking their fingers in holes bursting in the dam rather than simply shoring up the dam itself?  They play whack-a-mole with their bans on this, their regulations of that, their laws against the other thing.  For every symptom, there’s a leftist fascist solution!  The shooter used a gun, ban them!  The shooter was insane, ban insanity!   The shooter played violent video games, ban violent games!  The shooter wore “X brand” jeans, ban them!

On the video game thingy:  I’m a gamer, so I was pretty interested in Michelle Malkin’s posting of a letter from a gamer she received regarding PvP (that’s person versus person, for you non-gamer types).  The writer makes a good point about how gamers often find their game community a social outlet.  This is definitely true in such games as (the now, sadly, former) City of Heroes and (so I’ve heard, at least, in) Guild Wars.  Anyway, the point of the guy’s letter was that all video games are not the problem, and I have to agree (obviously things like FarmVille aren’t inspiring shooting rampages).

But his point about PvP, while valid, is also flawed.  I, personally, don’t PvP because I don’t like shooting my friends or unsuspecting strangers; it’s just not fun to me.  But it is fun to a lot of people, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they will go out shooting people in “real life.”  Sane people know that games are games, not life, not real.  Do they desensitize people?  Maybe.  I’m no shrink, but I do know that no normal, balanced (i.e. sane) person is going to PvP in any game and then go shoot up an elementary school.  Or movie theater.  Or high school.  Or post office.  Or military installation.  It’s a game, not a means of mass hypnosis (or we’d all be shooting up schools).

And even if PvP or simply violent video games did inspire such actions (I sincerely doubt they do any more than listening to the Beatles made people have wanton sex or do drugs), the player would definitely think twice about entering a combat arena in which the other “players” were likely to be as well or better armed.  They may not mind their video game character being killed without doing much serious damage (and they know that in order to reach some invincible build in the PvP game of their choice, that character had to die multiple times–not something people can do–so the player can tweak his stats), but they darn sure won’t risk their own skins to get off a shot or two before being pwned.  So again, I say, let everyone who wants to and has a license carry any and everywhere.

But . . . waaah! . . . shrieks the illogical leftist, we’d end up in the wild wild West with everyone shooting everyone on sight.  Um, no.  In states with carry laws (concealed or not), there is actually less gun violence . . . at least in places that citizens can carry.  Responsible, law-abiding citizens do not go around shooting people, and they know better than to wave their guns around for fun.  If this were a real concern, then we’d hear about it.  Endlessly.  (If the commie media could find any story about a reasonable person suddenly going wild West we’d hear about it for days.  Weeks.).  But we don’t.  Crazy people who want to kill the most possible people without risk to their plan being interrupted never ever shoot on potentially-armed people.

These blood baths happen where guns are banned.



20 thoughts on “Guns: The Defenseless Shouldn’t Be Defenseless

  1. We know why lefties scream so loud for gun control: because they want to keep us under control. They want us poverty stricken and defenseless so they can live out their totalitarian fantasies.

  2. Look to the south where guns are banned. The whole country of Mexico is held hostage by the drug cartels. As you say, when guns are banned, only criminals will have them.

    Liberals want to rule our world. They know it’s much harder if we’re armed.

  3. When you look at the statistics from countries where guns are under tight control (Australia, Britain, etc.) you see a marked rise in violent crime. It’s a very simple equaltion that the Left ignore for political reasons– much like raising tax rates for more money.

    From a practical point of view, although these shooting binges make great TV for the MSM, they are very rare. What is not nearly as rare is violent crime. And, as you pointed out, violent crime rates reduce where people have guns and increase where guns are tightly restricted (New York, Chicago).

    As people have often pointed out, Conn. has the 5th strictest gun laws in the US, and that jerk still got his hands on guns. It seems reasonable to surmise that Obama and his Leftists ilk wish to make all of America have laws more strict than in Conn. to make us better targets for thugs, thieves, rapists, and that extraordinarily rare weirdo who decides killing a bunch of people will make him feel better.

    It’s completely consistent with Leftist thought though, ie narrow minded nonsense that fails to focus on either the facts or the actual issues.

  4. I grew up very close to Newtown. I am still in so much shock. I am not kidding it is the town that you don’t lock your doors, leave the keys in your car, and you don’t think twice about it. The crime there is virtually non-existent. Many people I grew up with live there now due to it being cheaper than the town we lived in.

    Banning guns won’t help anything. Doing something about mental illness has a chance, but even then you can’t legislate away crazy. It has always existed and always will.

    • This is where Obama is right, we have a choice: are our freedoms “worth” the risk of some lunatic going on a killing spree? I say “yes, a thousand times yes!” Lefties say, no way, I’d rather be “safe” (as if that’s possible) than free. This is the big difference between us and “them.”

  5. Yukio – Violent crime in the UK is FALLING . The “UK is more violent than USA, South Africa, and every civilized country in the world” myth has been thoroughly debunked. Oddly this was going around the internet just before a general election………. I’m an American living in the UK (20 years now) and I’m never coming home ….. it is much safer for my kids here.

    The shooter’s first victim, his mother, WAS armed. It didn’t help did it? The attacker always has the element of surprise.

    There is a big difference between a criminal and someone who has a mental breakdown. Yes the former may get hold of an illegal weapon …… the latter? Probably not …… they are unlikely to have the connections among the criminal fraternity to obtain an illegal gun.

    All of this is borne out in the UK where the homicide rate per 100,000 people (all weapons) is 1.2. In the USA it is 4.2. And criminals do not routinely arm themselves in the UK – yes criminals don’t!! – armed crime is extremely rare in the UK.

    And I expect you won’t publish this comment because of these inconvenient truths …… I believe freedom of speech should extend even to people who disagree with you. Let’s see.

    BR, Amie

    • I’ll let Yukio respond to the parts directed at him, and I will respond to the part directed at me. I don’t mind publishing opposing viewpoints that are not mean-spirited and ad hominem attacks (i.e. like yours); however, I would like to point out that “free speech” has nothing to do with your “right” to post a comment on my blog (or anywhere else for that matter). Free speech, here in the United States, is guaranteed in the Constitution such that the Congress can make no law restricting the freedom of speech.

      In other words, the government, the state, cannot restrict free speech. Period. It doesn’t say, “and Fuzzy shall always have to read and post anything by anyone who wants to post on her blog.” Or anything even remotely similar. You are free to say what you wish to say, and I am free to ignore it if I choose. You are not guaranteed an unwilling audience, nor are you guaranteed that your speech will be accepted by your audience, willing or otherwise. Free speech does not mean you get to say whatever you want with no interpersonal repercussions. If that were the case, we’d all have to accept and be happy with all that “hate” speech you lefties find so horrific (even criminal!).

      Free speech does not mean that I have to post comments by the KKK, the NBPP, or by anyone with whom I disagree or find their comment insulting or potentially so to myself or others who come here. Your comment is not insulting, but should you become so, I will happily fail to publish them and not have a twinge of regret about it because you have zero “right” to publish comments on my blog (or anywhere else, for that matter).

      (btw, this is a pet peeve of mine. Confused lefties too often get “freedom of speech” wrong, thus the explanation. There is a huge difference between my deleting comments, sending them/their writers to spam, or flat out banning people from my blog, and the state dictating what is “acceptable” speech/arresting people for dissent, etc. Surely you can see the difference?)

    • Arnie,

      Hmm. You found a graph in Wikipedia Commons that supposedly shows that the UK is less violent than the US. As far as I can see, it simply shows that violent crime spiked in 1995 in the UK and dropped. And that’s it. It stops in 2007, does not show US crime numbers, nor does it bother to give a definition of the term “violent crime.”

      Of course all this assumes that these numbers were not pulled out of the database in someone’s lower intestine (I stole that phrase, but it’s just too fitting not to use). The only source for the numbers reflected in this graph is an itsy-bitsty link down in the small print that only links to information that is downloaded onto Micrsoft Excel and can then be changed by the user. I could change the numbers generate another graph that shows the UK was something out of a lawless, Mad Max apocalypse in 1985 and then the Garden of Eden in 1986. I’m not saying that you fudged the numbers, but color me unconvinced of the authenticity of your “evidence.” I would suggest not using Wikipedia for much of anything, btw.

      Or are you just saying that violent crime is falling in the UK? Then maybe you need to find a better graph that doesn’t end 5 years ago and one that didn’t, according to The Telegraph, underestimate violent crime by a fifth.

      Here’s an article from the British newspaper The Daily Mail in 2009– two years after this graph ends– saying that the UK does have a high violent crime rate.

      The title of the article is: “The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.” Kinda self-explanatory, don’ cha think? According to the article the numbers’ sources are “compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations”.

      The figures put the rate of violent crime per 100,000 residents at people at 2034. South Africa was 3rd at 1609 per 100,000. The US? 466 per 100,000. Not even close. Granted that I would argue that many, many violent crimes go unreported in South Africa so it’s numbers are low, but South Africa also has strict laws attempting to control guns so…

      From the British paper The Telegraph:

      “The Home Office says there has been a downtrend in overall violence for the past decade.

      “But last October it emerged that levels of violent crime in England and Wales had been underestimated for more than a decade because of a blunder in recording methods.

      “Ministers admitted that some police forces had not been recording offences of grievous bodily harm with intent as serious violent crime. When the offences were included violent crime figures immediately increased by a fifth.”

      But all of this was just election year lies by the Conservatives or something. Right? In cahoots with the EC and UN no doubt. And only Labour knows it. OK. Let’s look at Australia.

      “Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
      •In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
      •Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
      •Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

      “Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
      •Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
      •During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
      •Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
      •Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
      •At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
      •Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.”

      Sounds like the criminals in Australia aren’t getting with the program… Maybe if we all say please?

      So hey, let’s ban guns and expect a 42% rise in violent crime, and 3x more rape, plus other goodies. Sounds like a brilliant idea.

      You wrote: “The shooter’s first victim, his mother, WAS armed. It didn’t help did it?”

      Are you kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting that a son stealing a gun (or guns) and shooting his mother is of such statistical significance that we should make our laws around it? Fine. Show me the numbers. Good luck with that.

      Regarding this specific happening, I wouldn’t want to argue with you about that one way or the other. I didn’t know the shooter nor his mother. And neither did you. So speculating on that is rather silly and pointless. And it simply constructs the dead, who cannot defend themselves, into little play-acting characters/puppets that say whatever you construct them to say. It’s an insulting political vaudeville routine. It’s sound and fury.

      I would say, however, that it seems logical that most people don’t buy weapons to protect themselves from mentally unbalanced relatives living with them at home. And I have never heard a pro-gun person argue that point. Ever. You’re arguing against a strawman argument– one that is particularly silly at that.

      You want to live in the UK? Good. Do so. Both where you want to live and the fact that you feel safer in the UK is of no relevance to your argument. I could feel real safe in L.A. if I stick to the right neighborhoods. Where I grew up?– not so so much. I would suggest that you back up your arguments with real evidence, and not merely your personal experiences, when trying to convince people who don’t share your opinions.

  6. This push by the Left is only the “nose of the camel under the tent”. Once enacted, the “assault weapons” ban will be expanded to suit their narrative, to include all semi-automatic guns.

    • Yeah. And notice the terminology. It used to be “assault rifles” which had a vague definition (realtively short-barreled rifle with an intermediate cartridge, autofire capability and reasonably large magazine). Now it’s “assault weapons” which can include pistols, mean looking knives, etc.

      It’s not an accident that the Left coined the term assault weapon when talking about weapons owned by the American citizenry.

      • Yes, Yukio, interesting how “assault rifles” is now “assault weapons.” Let’s not forget that the legal definition of “deadly weapons” essentially includes anything used to kill someone, including flashlights and bricks. “Assault weapons” will definitely be extended to include handguns; what’s the point of a gun ban, if you don’t ban all guns? You know, except those owned by criminals.

  7. Pingback: Sunday Links: Facebook Friends Pics Edition Volume 46

  8. Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Christmas Edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

  9. President Obama used the six weeks after his election to remain in full campaign mode and attack the GOP relentlessly with the intent of marginalizing House Speaker John Boehner.
    Obama REFUSES to address “Operation Fast & Furious.”and yet he is so out spoken when it comes to the NRA.
    More than three hundred people are DEAD because of Obama and Holder, almost TWELVE TIMES the number of dead in Sandy Hook, Connecticut….
    It’s a well known fact that gun laws aren´t aimed at criminals but average law abiding citizens.The worst shooting areas in the country all probably have assault weapons bans
    WHY was Obama FORCING GUNS into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?

    WHY is he hiding behind executive privilege?

    WHY are these networks refusing to seek the TRUTH in this matter?

    If the NRA is going to be persecuted for standing up for Second Amendment rights, Barack Obama and his cronies should be persecuted with the FACTS!
    The whole point of the liberal/progressive movement is to free the government from the constitution and thereby replace freedom with a socialist dictatorship. We have more than enough laws. These killers are crazy they don’t obey the laws, so why punish the public with more laws that aren’t going to mean anything to these crazy people.

  10. Yes, Virginia the bankrupting of America does continue!
    I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of all of this political drama Obama and his cronies are staging. Make No mistake about it if Obama had his way, America would plunge straight off “The Fiscal Cliff”!
    And this deal is not over yet, we are still headed straight for “The Fiscal Cliff” Just what Obuma wants. This Obama’s dysfunctional bunch of partisan morons, like Pelosi etc. Did you happen to hear the remarks made from these stupid and these allegedly educated people who we’ve elected that apparently can’t even manage to do the freaken jobs they’re getting paid (and giving themselves ‘salary increases. Nancy what’s her face said on Face The Nation yesterday, (Sunday) she said: “I told my Republican friends”: “Take Back Your Party,’ You’ve Become The ‘Over The Edge Crowd”
    How can you possibly negotiate with a bozo like that? Seriously. The answer is YOU JUST CAN’T.
    And here?s the deal and this is just the tip of the iceberg. O’Bamboozer want us to give more and more money to the, should i put it nicely and say the “Have Not’s” Well just read on my good friends and look at where our hard earned money is going. More proof that Bamboozler really hates Americans, ans is determined to bring us to our knees. Once again that poor excuse for a man sets forth more regulations and rules are implemented there needs to be more enforcement entities to catch the perps who have learned how to game the systems already in place. The enforcement folks will see the futility in busting only a couple of crooks while the rest run wild and they will eventually give up trying to catch them. See Detroit. See Chicago. The cops have surrendered. The crooks won. And it only gets worse.
    A investigation just exposed a database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by the New York Post, through a Freedom of Information request, that showed welfare recipients using their electronic benefit transfer cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs, sounds pretty reasonable so far doesn’t it.\/ But wait, these “Poor” Welfare recipients have been spending cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, in hookers, and strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than food, and diapers, and other necessities. Yeah, spending our money on sex, lottery tickets, and booze,, Those are the Obama voters folks! The liberal way…we work….they play! Obama didn’t go off the cliff because he got everything he wanted, so he picked up his marbles and returned to Hawaii. It was a BIG win for him, there was no spending cuts! What-so-ever But just wait until they try to force his hand about cutting spending!
    I ask you, You’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but I’;; bet he has no interest in negotiating anything that regards tp spending?
    Is anyone actually surprised? These parasites and thugs have been using the system for decades. This what Democrats and liberals have done to this country. But you know what? This of us without a political agenda have warned for years, that once Democrats got enough people on the dole and receiving financial assistance from the governmental agencies, such as a welfare. Guaranteeing a Democrat election win, we as a country were done! Did you listen? NOPE! You voted ideology and entitlements, you wanted to “share the wealth” you wanted to stick it ti the rich! and you’ve got exactly what you wanted and what you deserve. And to add fuel to the fire, now he wants to nominate a JEW Hatter like Chuck Hagel as the next Defense Secretary, sheer lunacy, like everything else that he has been doing to give America the middle finger.
    Put a fork in us! We’re done!

  11. for people to be able to defend them selves. it is the detectives that need to learn how to investigate the cases better not the law. a citizen should have every right to defend him self with out worrying about a lawsuit or criminal charges. the SYG law is not the problem. anti-gun nuts are just against anything that has to do with people right to use them for protection. and FYI every murder suspect ever has used a defense. not having the SYG law would of not saved Jordan. his murder would just be using a different defense.

What say you?

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s