But, with a twist, he'd have you believe we've never tried it before. He writes:
We do nothing. The same argument that was used to pass the first major gun control law in the United States. In 1968. Forty years ago. After two scandalous crimes involving guns, the assassinations of former Attorney General (and then-presidential candidate) Bobby Kennedy and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.Gun Law Pragmatism
By E. J. Dionne Jr., The Washington Post
Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent deaths. Opponents of gun control shout "No!" Guns don't kill people, people kill people, they say, and anyway, if everybody were carrying weapons, someone would have taken out the murderer and all would have been fine.
And we do nothing.
This is a stupid argument, driven by the stupid politics of gun control in the United States. (link)
We do nothing.
Nothing? We now have 10,000 gun laws in this country. That's nothing? Every time another notorious killing takes place, these guys drag out that same old, worn-out, failed argument. We've done nothing. We need to do something. We need a gun law.
We've sat back and allowed these depraved fools to convince us that we've done nothing - over and over again - about crime in this country and now, 10,000 laws later, the murders continue - and we are still accused of doing nothing.
Well, we've decided to do something. Finally. After listening to E.J. Dionne and his ilk for forty years tell us that they could end the violence with a gun law, another gun law, a series of gun laws, gun laws on top of gun laws, and forty years after they began having their way, 10,000 gun laws later, finding that they've accomplished absolutely nothing, we've decided to try something different.
We now demand that the people of the United States be allowed to defend themselves.
We now demand that, when a parent sends a child to school, that that child be protected, not made absolutely defenseless.
We now demand that a professor, should he wish to be able to defend himself rather than acquiesce to being killed, be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to prevent the depredations of deranged lunatics intent on doing them and their charges grievous harm.
We now demand that, when a woman is being stalked by a crazed psychopath, that she not have to pin her hopes of survival on some meaningless court order, that she be allowed to defend herself with whatever means are necessary.
We now demand that, rather than hide behind a desk as a madman chains the doors barring our escape and begins executing people, and waiting twenty minutes for law enforcement to come to our promised rescue, that we be able to defend ourselves.
We now demand the right to not be at a maniac's mercy, hoping and praying that he either runs out of ammunition or, as was the case in the Virginia Tech Massacre, that the madman finally decides to kill himself before killing all of us.
We have but one life. We now demand the right to live it.
We hold our children to be the most precious gifts that will ever be given to us. We now demand the right to protect them at all costs.
You've had it your way, E.J., for far too long. Your way has ended in dismal, tragic failure. More deaths. More gun laws. More mad gunmen. More gun laws. Enough is enough. We now demand the right to have it our way.
We did nothing. As a sociopath roamed the hallways of one of America's most prestigious universities, slaughtering innocent girls and boys with impunity, those boys and girls, men and women, and their professors, beloved sons and daughters, were allowed to do nothing.
We did nothing either. You at least got that right. To your everlasting shame.
14 comments:
mr. fuhrman, guns are just fine in a world of obligation, honor and community, but in our world we have secluded crazies who beat the system. so should we let it go and hope for the best, pushing morality no one wants. or should we look to practical and secular answers? guns have become an incresing problem; 200 years ago youd be lucky to kill one person with a pistol because of the technology. we need advanced laws to match advanced technology.
If guns cause homicides, then one may, by logical extension, draw the following conclusions about causal factors for the top U.S. mortality groups: golden arches cause heart disease, cigarette lighters cause cancer, sex causes abortions, steering wheels cause car accidents, toxic-warning labels cause poisonings, ladders cause falls and bottles cause deaths associated with alcohol abuse.
Of course, by way of this liberal blameshifting logic, one may also conclude that commercial jets and truck bombs cause buildings to collapse, 90210 causes 9/11 conspiracy theories, freedom causes tyranny, beards cause terrorism, SUVs cause global warming, White House interns cause infidelity, saying “no” causes rape, chains cause slavery, matches cause arson, cameras cause pornography, sporks cause obesity, marriage causes divorce, crowbars cause burglary, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, 24-hour news-cycle talkingheads cause ignorance, ad nauseam...
all of the latter is contingent upon the former. whats so unacceptable about that? you remove the superfluous and create a means to an end. respectably, homicide is not associated with what happened at virginia tech, there was nothing gained by the murderer, the system failed him and us. he was crazy, in the most literal sense, and because of our inability to advance the governments social responsibility we are all victim to this kind of tragedy.
and yes, your absolutist ideology is cause for the lack of progress. make overly romantic statements as you may, it doesnt fix the system.
That is right cory. Gun control and gun free zones fail to protect.
lets all have them, good idea. so instead of isolated incidents we can watch a 1000% increase in their occurrence, except all the violators get the "good old fashioned justice" that makes you feel like a man. this guy couldnt have been in need, right? he wasnt failed somewhere along the line? thats not the problem? its gun rights, so we can dispose of them. thats a good idea. was his "a life unworthy of living"? probably, lets just blow him away, not look at the source of the deviance. its easier that way.
Eloquent, Jerry. I can't see how anyone with an ounce of sense can ask for more gun control when we already have (at least) 10,000 laws. One of the problems not addressed in this debate is the fact that the U.S.A. is a more violent country than almost all of the "civilized" nations of the world. Of interest, is the fact that the non-gun homicide rate here is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. So, even if we became gun free, there would still be more mayhem than in many other countries. Estimates of self-defense use of firearms in the U.S. range from at least 100,000 times per year to something like 2 million times. (We only have estimates probably because keeping records might prove detrimental to the gun grabbers.) In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed and assaulted was higher in gun control countries like England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the U.S. The assault rate in England was twice that of the U.S. In the 10 years since England banned all private possession of handguns, the number of gun crimes has increased greatly. So, gun control is stupid since it only penalizes law abiding citizens.
youre advocating violence as a solution to violence. people have no reason to follow law outside of the their desire to do so. 10k laws that dont work arent reason to believe the ideology is flawed, only the politicians who are fighting the opposition and cant overcome it.
how about we judge RELEVANT stats like the fact texas, a state in your pocket, compared to the more liberal states. compare those, not countries removed from our culture.
id be willing to bet there are more guns im my area of the country than most others. everyone has a gun and its rural, and theyre often used inapropriatly. ive been walking down the street and had a hand gun pointed at me by teenagers who thought it was cute. this kind of thing should be a possibility, with the condition of our schools and support systems? just so you can have some kind of protection of the constitution thats so far removed from reality it holds no value at all.
"ive been walking down the street and had a hand gun pointed at me by teenagers who thought it was cute"
And you did nothing.
Cory says:
"and because of our inability to advance the governments social responsibility we are all victim to this kind of tragedy."
Governments social responsibility? Murder is against the law... How that murder is carried out is irrelevent...
Kilo is dead on here... Go after cars and hamburgers... The Second Amendment protects the first... That is why they are in that order..
the Third through tenth amendments, are all about call a lawyer...
It is our right to protest govt. and then our right to protect ourselves from govt...
Without a govt. in check... we have nothing....
I believe in Choice. People, who use the arguments of cory, believe in trusting the government to protect them and solve their problems. I, along with Kilo, Jerry and Chris believe that we should be able to choose how best to be able to protect ourselves along with our families.
I choose to not be on my knees begging some worthless shred of human debris to spare my life.
Our founders fought and bled for the document that guarantees, not grants, our right of self-protection. If you choose to forfeit that back to King George III, that is your choice, not mine.
being a naive "young person" who simply hasnt grown up and paid his taxes yet i can say from experience that ive seen our school systems fail friends of mine. im a few years out of school and looking at where they are now i hope to god they dont have guns to be responsible for, considering they are hardly responsible for themselves. its not a matter of does this cryptic document say we deserve guns, its a matter of whats the result of it and in what way will it harm the common good. im a big fan of the declaration of independence, and the constitution should only act as protection, but in the words you have to define things like the pursuit of happiness, and even more greatly you have to understand human rights. i believe in community; since community cant exist we need logical standards that are effective to provide responsibility and structure. our world isnt organized vertically like it was when the constitution was writte, its horizontal, and kids and the needy are lost in the shuffle becuase its inefficient to ensure their well being. those who would have been able to help no longer have a bond to them. creating slums isnt going to get us anywhere, look at the rest of the world, does the wealth reach the poor anywhere? or is 2/3 of the world living in poverty while some prosper? and you saying we need guns so we can protect ourselves from deviants is as good as advocating hitlers ideology of a life unworthy of living. effectively what are we doing in this protection? why arent we working from the bottom up? you talk about despotism like youre beyond it. none of you have shown anything but the arrogance that enables it. maybe we should put faith in congress, like it was intended, and not your boy george bush.
and id really like to point out that none of you have given a solution to gun violence except dispose of the troubled. its kind of like the death penalty acting as a deterrent, it just doesnt work. so please, any solutions besides “git ‘em before they git us?”
Cory:
I really tried to follow your rambling logic here. The only thing I really understand is that you believe Cho wasn't to blame for his own actions? If Cho was a victim in this case, it is only to being taught the same "I am a victim" ideology that you are preaching. Very few of us grow up without pain of some kind. Most of us learn from it and become stronger for it. A few use it as an EXCUSE to hurt others. It's never a defense for killing 32 people!
Cory, it is almost impossible to follow your posts. You appear to have a naive faith in government. If you learn nothing else, please try to understand that government is a necessary evil. Because it is necessary, we must have it. Because it is evil, we must have as little of it as possible. Don't hate it but don't trust it overmuch either.
not an excuse, a reason. its different.
my point is that this arguement youre making for guns uses non sequiter logic and doesnt address the problem at hand, in ideal circumstance people continue to die needlessly. thats not a solution, and you provide none in attacking the state of things.
Post a Comment