…as the saying goes, “only outlaws will have guns.” The problem with gun violence is that there aren’t enough responsible, would-be heroes carrying guns. Same goes for the recent campus shootings: the problem is that there aren’t enough guns. Think about it: how long would those cowardly crybabies have lasted if they showed up all Matrix-clad with high hopes of blowing away lots of people (”just like on my video game!”), only to be shot down by the first normal-johnny-well-adjusted kid before Neo-wannabe even lifted his gun above his waist? Not long. Body count: murderers 1, innocents 0.
This might be surprising, but if you think about it, gun control laws are actually government-enforced subsidies on crime. How, you ask? By removing natural competition. Private gun ownership is “the great leveller.” DC’s crime rate pre- and post-gun control makes this pretty clear.
The SCOTUS will be hearing a case in [on] March 18th. Mark your calendars, and let’s hope that the Constitution is upheld, and that this right that “shall never be infringed” begins to be restored across our land (especially here in New Jersey!).
For more information: Townhall.com, Washington Post, etc.
gmail.com
9 responses so far ↓
1 Josh Cheney // Mar 6, 2008 at 6:02 am
You are exactly right. Every shooting of this type has only ever ended by the perpetrator being shot, and the majority of the time it is self inflicted. These people are cowards who are only interested in preying on unarmed sheep, and the instant that a confrontation with a trained, confident, and armed individual (civilian or otherwise) becomes a possibility, they will turn their guns on themselves, because they are afraid.
I’ve always found this to be an interesting take on the subject.
2 Luke Middleton // Mar 6, 2008 at 11:12 am
I read a story in the news a couple years ago where someone in a shopping plaza parking lot pulled a gun from their vehicle and took down an individual who was going around shooting at people and stores.
Also, aren’t there implications here if the government is the only entity with weapons? Plenty of governments have gone bad in the past, what if ours did and no citizens had the means to protect themselves?
3 tim // Mar 6, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Come on man, what about turning the other cheek? Violence begets violence. Private gun ownership causes children to find guns and shoot each other. The constitution is outdated, it was talking about militias anyway. I think it is ok if hunters have guns, if they are starving and eat the meat, yeah, the second amendment protects that right though. If there were no guns, people wouldn’t use them to kill each other.
4 Mike // Mar 7, 2008 at 10:57 am
Some people view the gun control movement as an ostensible and even systematic way of disarming the American people for the sole reason of rendering them impotent against a corrupt government bent on tyranny.
The constitution included the bill of rights in order to protect us from the government; with the right to own a gun being of second level importance behind freedoms of religion, press, speech, and assembly. Any attempt to infringe upon this right by the government is a rather large red flag in my opinion.
I would respectfully disagree with Tim, even though I’ve had my own doubts about guns and gun violence - personal responsibility is the key. My right to own and use a gun should not be taken away solely because someone else was irresponsible with their gun(s). However, I also disagree with Aron. In a culture where violence is often equated with conflict resolution I doubt that putting more guns into the equation would solve the problem. In fact, it would probably make it that much more difficult for law inforcement to discern the identity of the criminal, even if they were “Matrix clad.” More guns, at least in the public arena, would probably result in more deaths, not fewer. Anyone can own a gun, but not everyone knows how to use one properly. With more bullets in the air there are more chances for inadvertant casualties.
That’s my take on it…
5 Aron // Mar 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Good points, Josh and Luke. I enjoy your sense of humor, Tim. Mike, to your first two paragraphs, “hear, hear!” I would add, however, that the stats in DC at least tell us that fewer guns means more deaths–innocent deaths, at that. “With more bullets in the air there are more chances for inadvertant casualties.” Perhaps; but disarm the law-abiding, and we virtually ensure that the casualties will be innocents by tipping the scales of power and force in favor of criminals. Allow law-abiding citizens to have guns, and at least heroism, or–even better–a “draw” becomes possible. (And, I’m confident that if gun ownership increases, so too would demand for gun club memberships, or at least gun safety classes and shooting range usage.)
This has been fun, friends.
6 Aron // Mar 7, 2008 at 1:01 pm
This guy says it better than I could:
The Seen and the Unseen in Gun Control, by Sheldon Richman of FEE.
7 Luke Middleton // Mar 7, 2008 at 1:57 pm
As someone living outside DC, I can tell you that walking in certain parts of the city and knowing that guns are outlawed would scare me to death and be an active thought in where I go and don’t go. When guns are outlawed, people still have them. And the people that have them aren’t usually the ones that will use them to protect innocent people.
8 jason // Mar 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm
A father provides security for his children. He doesn’t wait for the police.
9 Linniepi // Apr 5, 2008 at 4:44 pm
thats it, brother
Leave a Comment