cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
r3020
Senior Advisor

Why gun control is not the answer

A very long article well worth the read. Very reasoned, articulate opinion on why gun control never works.

 

snip-

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

 

snip-

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

snip-

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

 

The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

  1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
  2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
  3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
  4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

 

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

9 Replies
Taylor ECIL
Senior Contributor

Re: Why gun control is not the answer

I thought of something here. Liberals want the border left open, and us disarmed. Liberals do you leave your house unlocked with no weapon to protect you and the missus. If not why not? If you lock tour doors and have any weapon of all you're all hypocrites.

Faust100F
Advisor

Re: Why gun control is not the answer

For all you Ron Paul fans, here is his response to Gun Control.  Taken from Zero Hedge today.  John

 

Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place.  Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones. 

 

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control.  This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned.  Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented.  But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.   

 

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence.  If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped. 

 

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence.  Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.  We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws. 

 

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality.  The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home.  U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

 

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

 

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

 

Do we really believe government can provide total security?  Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?  Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.  Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.  We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue

 

unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

 
 
kraft-t
Senior Advisor

We don't always lock the doors when we are home.

We never did in Iowa but in OK we lock them when we leave or go to bed at night.

 

Our firearms are somewhere in the attic depending on if the Mrs moved them to store her stuff somewhere. My shotgun and rifle must be very lonely as i don't visit them much and wouldn't give two bucks of another one.

 

My guns don't make me feel manly or macho or any other erectile function.

Faust100F
Advisor

Re: We don't always lock the doors when we are home.

Kraft-T - well I stopped locking the doors on my farmhouse three years ago, when my house was broken into, and $5,000 in guns stolen, and my boone and crocket buck shot years ago was taken.   I do not keep much of value there anymore, I figure if someone wants in, at least I will not have to replace the door or window. 

 

My firearms are stored in the locked trunk of my car, and the pistol is locked an loaded on the night stand near my bed.  I have experienced theft only two times in 30 years on the farm.   One was diesel fuel which was spilled on the ground and I called the sheriff, who counseled me not to file a report,since the DNR would make me get a backhoe and remove all the contaminated soil; and the other was the gun theft, which had the stolen serial numbers reported to the ATF by the sheriff. 

 

I know who stole the guns, even his name, he resides on a ranch in Nebraska.  One of these days I will be dropping in on him and asking for my guns back. lol. John

GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: We don't always lock the doors when we are home.

We never locked our doors, until the 50's, an escaped convict, out of Jackson, killed a man and his wife just 4 miles from the house. I was just a young kid then, and after that happened, Dad, put locks on the door. The con, killed them because the man refused to give him the car keys, with a hammer, the wife came out to invesitgate where the husband was, and the con, killed her to. So, have never went to bed with out the house locked, but have always left the keys in the vehicles, figured if they want the damnd thing let 'em have it, just leave us alone, and go.

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: We don't always lock the doors when we are home.

So, why didn't you get your guns back.  Seems to me that the NE police would gladly have gone and arrested the guy.  You must not be a very good repub if you just let someone steal your guns and then just forgot about it and let him keep them.  Shame, shame!

Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

Re: We don't always lock the doors when we are home.

You have obviously never dealt with trying to get stolen property back, Cowboy Rex. Your ignorance shows.

Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

Re: Why gun control is not the answer

America needs to find an electable version of Dr. Paul.

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: We don't always lock the doors when we are home.

I know enough to realize that if I knew for sure the thief's name and address, that after the trail, I would get my property back if it was still in his possession.  You ignorance is the only thing showing here and maybe the lie of a made up story to try to make a point.