Another terrible tragedy in another gun-free zone in a State where firearms are heavily regulated by law and the usual anal-retentive types are calling for more Natural Right-oppressing draconian laws in attempt to to control just about every variable that they suggest went wrong on that fateful Friday with this situation and still getting it all wrong themselves.
First they want to do something about people with mental health issues. Let us understand that each and every one of us can be driven to commit such an atrocity ourselves if the conditions are just right, or just wrong, as the case may be. Any one who claims otherwise is only fooling themselves. The human brain, for all its wonderful capabilities, is a very delicate electrochemical instrument requiring a perfect balance of numerous factors for it to operate properly and efficiently. Disease, poor nutrition, drug interactions, and certain meteorological conditions are just a few of the affective agents that can disrupt its smooth operations and send the person to whom the brain belongs into a freakstorm of irrational and possibly violent behavior.
For some to assume that human institutions like government can control the astronomical variables (including the effects of overzealous and unnecessary scrutiny by government officials), so many that they border on being random, that cause people to "flip out" is to suggest that humans can control the weather right down to the fine point of directing and micromanaging the individual flight path of each and every raindrop in a hurricane. It cannot be done in a predictive sense without locking everyone into his own prison cell. What we must concentrate on is being prepared to deal with each incident as they present themselves to us.
Then there is the incessant calls to outlaw the types of firearms that this particular shooter used. Let us briefly assess the crime statistics of those who kill using "Assault Weapons" under the most "Liberal" of definitions for firearms that fit into that category.
- People who are murdered by PEOPLE using "Assault Weapons" constitute either 0.2 or 2 percent* of all murder victims where a firearm was used by another PERSON to kill them. There was no significant reduction in this number in the entire ten-year period of the Clinton "Assault Weapon" Ban.
- More people are murdered by PEOPLE using a weapon that is not a firearm - knives, clubs, automobiles, etc. - than are murdered by PEOPLE using an "Assault Weapon."
- Of the PEOPLE who kill other people by using an "Assault Weapon," the vast majority are law enforcement personnel. Hopefully most of these incidents were justifiable homicides committed in the line of duty.
Any law that attempts to prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future is an application of a "ton of prevention for an ounce of cure." In a Free society it is the right and responsibility of each individual to be prepared to defend his person and continue the perpetuation of his own life. We can see that where that right and responsibility has been transferred to others, others will always fail us because, by pure human nature, they will be too busy exercising their right to protect themselves from harm to take care of us. Laws that ban the honest and law-abiding people from protecting themselves with the most efficient means available to them only lead to democide, genocide, and another Holocaust.
As a side note for those who love a good Conspiracy Theory, wrap your mind around this: If someone wanted to malign people with minor mental disabilities, gun owners and the guns they choose to own, homeschoolers, and "Preppers," could someone have picked a better patsy to take the fall for this massacre than the young man who was found dead, allegedly of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, in the school building ?
"Things are getting curiouser and curiouser..."
Author's Addendum December 19, 2012
* My original source for the number "0.2 %" appears to have either been in error or is murky due to the floating nature of the definition of what constitutes an "Assault Weapon." Most recent statistics list the number as 2 percent of all firearm-related murders but then notes that most of these "Assault Weapons" are semi-automatic HANDGUNS that work with detachable box magazines that have a capacity greater than ten rounds and not necessarily a semi-automatic rifle like the one used by this shooter. The smaller number might apply to the type of rifle alleged to have been used but I cannot pin that one down to my usual degree of certainty and so I have made this addendum.
Author's Addendum December 20, 2012
The statistics become murkier and murkier...
As a side note for those who love a good Conspiracy Theory, wrap your mind around this: If someone wanted to malign people with minor mental disabilities, gun owners and the guns they choose to own, homeschoolers, and "Preppers," could someone have picked a better patsy to take the fall for this massacre than the young man who was found dead, allegedly of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, in the school building ?
"Things are getting curiouser and curiouser..."
Author's Addendum December 19, 2012
* My original source for the number "0.2 %" appears to have either been in error or is murky due to the floating nature of the definition of what constitutes an "Assault Weapon." Most recent statistics list the number as 2 percent of all firearm-related murders but then notes that most of these "Assault Weapons" are semi-automatic HANDGUNS that work with detachable box magazines that have a capacity greater than ten rounds and not necessarily a semi-automatic rifle like the one used by this shooter. The smaller number might apply to the type of rifle alleged to have been used but I cannot pin that one down to my usual degree of certainty and so I have made this addendum.
Author's Addendum December 20, 2012
The statistics become murkier and murkier...
Um, hey numbnuts, if you're going to preface your argument with the idea that ANY ONE OF US, given the right circumstances, could be driven to commit an atrocity like Newtown, maybe you shouldn't then go on to suggest that we should all be allowed to carry weapons capable of killing large numbers of people in a short period of time.
ReplyDeleteTo the contrary, that's exactly why NO ONE should be able to own them. If EVERYONE is cable of mass murder, NO ONE should own tools of mass murder. DUH.
Um, because anyone at any time can "flip one's lid," it becomes incumbent upon the rest of us to be armed so as to keep the "loose cannon" in check. When people are disarmed it becomes easier for the "loose cannon" to create greater carnage.
DeleteLaws that disarm the people only creates a safe, target-rich environment for those who would prey upon them...
But why are we allowing potential lunatics, such as yourself by your very own admission, access to weapons of relatively massive death-dealing in the first place?
DeleteHere you go potential loose cannon, take a gun to disarm other potential loose cannons, just don't become a loose cannon yourself...um, please?
That makes sense!
How about, let's just stop selling this awful weaponry to all these potential loose cannons?
But of course, that makes too much sense!
Fine, you want to disarm everyone. Who enforces your decree? The military and/or police? Who are they? Divine angels from Heaven? Perfectly programmed robots from the future? No, they are just a group of fallible human beings like the rest of us, who, because of the high stress related to their profession, have been known to "flip their lids" and go on homicidal rampages.
DeleteWho watches them? We the people, if we are adequately armed to get the job done.
Your reasoning is incomplete, immature, and circular.
Never said I wanted to DISARM everyone - I just think reasonable restrictions need to be in place. If it was up to the gun nuts ANYONE at ANY TIME could buy ANY WEAPON. I'm just asking for stringent background checks and a limit as to the types of weapons people can buy. It's no different from many other laws being enforced - why does it have to be all or nothing with you people? I'm willing to compromise, why aren't you?
DeleteDo you know what "reasonable restrictions" are already in place and were in place at the time of the CT shooting? There are already limits on the types of weapons that can be purchased (NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Brady Bill 1994) and stringent background checks are performed for every sale through a FFL dealer. CT has even more than the minimum set by federal law.
DeleteI never compromise when it comes to liberty. Here are some reasonable gun laws I have recommended in the past that leaves very little power in the hands of our benevolent government officials...
http://olgreyghost.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-there-reasonable-gun-control-law.html
Your arguments in that article are only relevant if you accept the idea that the government would attempt to conquer...it's...own...country? By force?
DeleteIn case you haven't noticed, in many respects we're already a conquered people and we continue to be conquered by the government, I suppose, as agents of the corporations, and they didn't need guns to do it. We willingly submitted and actually will line up for hours and spend our hard-earned money to be conquered some more.
Needing to be prepared for armed conflict with the GOVERNMENT is such an antiquated argument. If they want to do something by force, they'll do it no matter how many guns you have. They'll chuck a missile at your house from 40,000 feet.
Now you've said something I will actually agree with. Of course, I will "not go quietly into the night" or be complicit in my own subjugation by allowing or consenting to my being disarmed.
DeleteThere are still those incidents of mob violence we should be prepared for and there will be roving bands of looters as the Greater Depression progresses. And there could always be a Zombie Apocalypse (Auuuuugggghhh!!! ;)
Peace be with you and yours and may you all enjoy a joyous Yuletide...
There are other ways to arm yourself than with guns and weapons of death - I feel very well-armed, in a way no government could ever confiscate. I don't think that we can just kill our way out of this one...thousands of years of violence and the subjugation has only gotten further reaching and more insidious (like I said, to the point that we practically beg for it) - are we just going to try fighting it with WEAPONS again? I think it might be time to break the cycle of violence and that's never going to happen in a culture that holds ever more powerful weapons in such high regard.
DeletePeace be with you and yours too - though I think we'll be feeling more peaceful in a household without weapons or the fear that we might need to use them.
"...(T)hough I think we'll be feeling more peaceful in a household without weapons or the fear that we might need to use them."
DeleteAre you willing to put that on a sign in front of your house? ;)
Since potential home-invaders don't know the difference between yours and mine, they, out of fear of having to deal with me, won't break into yours. In this sense, my weapons are indirectly keeping you and yours safe. And I'm not even charging you for the service...
I don't own a gun and I am thankful for those that do know how to use them as some of my neighbors do. I like the way you think and press facts and truth with well though out logic.
ReplyDeleteIn light of so much government mischief and a nation of sheeple I may have arm myself too as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven after shooting an unarmed man, "Well he should have armed himself."
I think it's a sad but necessary "evil" to be armed for defense in a "civilized" society where people need protection from civilized people and civil government.
Hmmm, I'm gonna post that in FB. "Are you willing to put on a sign..."
Thank you for your kind words. If you choose to arm yourself, I, as always, recommend some training if you haven't already had some (military, etc.). And invest in a good flashlight - Know It (your target) before you Blow It (away)!
Delete