| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |||
| Pry Those Guns From Our Cold, Dead Fingers | |||
| 2015-10-14 | |||
| [HuffingtonPost] In 2012, 986 mass shootings ago, I wrote these words: "In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness." Now it's time to talk about guns. It's talk like this that makes the words of the Democratic candidates at the debate tonight a lie. "Oh no, we just want sensible control, we don't want to take peoples' guns." Horse hockey. It's exactly what they want, and articles like this are the proof of that. In the wake of the Umpqua Community College shooting, I had the unenviable task of appearing on CNN to defend the shooter's mother, Laurel Harper, for sharing an entirely legal interest in firearms with her son. Legal, but stupid. Should Harper be blamed for her son's actions? Of course not. Millions of parents share an interest in guns with their children. Harper did not have a crystal ball that could predict her son would become a mass shooter; in fact, it could be argued that mothers are the worst people to ask about their children's weaknesses, because we prefer to focus, like Harper did, on our children's strengths. Harper, who is grieving the loss of her son, the tenth victim of the shooting, couldn't predict a mass shooting any better than anyone else can. But was Harper irresponsible in how she owned and stored her guns? The clear answer is yes. Not because her son had a mental illness. Because all parents who own and store guns in their homes are irresponsible, regardless of whether anyone in the family has a mental illness. What causes mass shootings? The same thing that causes 61% of all deaths by gun violence (suicides): easy access to guns. If no one in your family has suffered the negative effects of gun ownership, it's not because you are a "responsible gun owner." You are just lucky. I will never deny the demographic fact that more firearms mean more deaths by firearms. Luck may play into whether you can survive in a household that has guns, but gun safety and a willingness to use firearms in the face of hostility likely has much more to do with it than luck. The research on guns and gun ownership is clear. Having firearms in your home makes everyone who lives there more likely to be a victim of gun violence, period. That's irresponsible parenting. No, irresponsible parenting is failing to teach your children about gun safety and firearms' utility. In the wake of other clear public health risks, Americans have acted rationally. For example, seatbelts save lives, so we pass laws that require car drivers to buckle up, and accident-related deaths go down. Could you point out the seatbelt amendment in the US Constitution? But guns? Pry them from our cold, dead fingers. You first. I live in Idaho, a state where the Second Amendment is revered only slightly less than the Bible. I have enjoyed shooting as a sport; in fact, my brothers taught marksmanship at Boy Scout camps for years. I also enjoy hunting, and many of my friends provide food for their families by heading to the hills with their .22s each October. But as I've learned more about the risks of storing guns in the home, my views on gun control have evolved.
Nice. Any other spouse would have told him to STFU.
Get a gun. I believe that Americans should be allowed to own any type of gun they want to--as long as they are stored in locked cases at gun clubs. Want to shoot a semiautomatic and feel like an action movie hero? Knock yourself out--at the gun club. Want to take your kids hunting for the weekend? Check out your hunting rifles--from the gun club. Gun clubs all forbid firing a semiautomatic faster than one round a second. Your statement tells me you are lying about your background with regard to guns. And having a gun at a gun club defeats the whole purpose behind self defense. When a bad guy breaks into your home, you had better have advance warning sufficient enough to go get your firearms, or you'd best be prepared to slug it out: bring a fist or a knife to a gun fight. If Adam and Nancy Lanza had bonded over guns at a club instead of at home, 20 children would likely be enjoying fourth grade this fall. If Laurel Harper and Chris Mercer had bonded over guns at a club instead of at home, 10 people would likely still be alive today and turning in their midterm writing assignments. If guns were stored at a gun club instead of at home, more than 19,000 people who died by suicide might have had a chance to get the mental healthcare they desperately needed. Adam, as I understand it, was a psychopath to begin with. Hugs and affection only go so far. And as I recall, Nancy did try to teach Adam about gun safety, but the lesson failed. Our Founding Fathers were reasonable men. They surely never imagined a country where an amendment designed to keep the British from invading, at a time when guns could only fire one shot at a time with questionable accuracy, would lead to almost weekly mass shootings of innocent citizens. One of the great lies perpetuated by the left is that the Founding Fathers would have reconsidered the 2nd Amendment due to the greater amount of damage those rifles can cause. They leave out the fact the they understood the fundamental nature of application of force by a government, and semiautomatics or muskets, would have written in the 2nd Amendment anyway. It's about being against tyranny, and having the means to defeat tyranny.
Long as you don't fire on me, or send paid thugs to do your bidding, you're good. | |||
| Posted by:badanov |
| #10 Bill of Rights - 1791 Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle - 1780 ROF - 22 in 30 seconds, .51 caliber, magazine fed Nock Gun - 1779 7 rounds per discharge Blunderbuss, Dragon handgun People had been figuring out different methods to fire multiple bullets in one shot since before Champlain and three others decimated the center of an enemy Indian line which outnumbered their own war party by at least two to one. Hell, the Byzantiums were defending Constantinople with flamethrowers, which I am sure were wounding/killing numbers of enemy in a short time. It was really the evolution of the bullet, that is, the self contained cartridge. Evolved. Love that term. How many species evolved into oblivion. Every time I come across that word from these Confessions of Collectivist Sins, I think Panda. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2015-10-14 16:19 |
| #9 Yeah, like Ben Franklin couldn't possibly envision advancement in weaponry past a flint-lock with a round ball. Give me a break. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2015-10-14 13:19 |
| #8 They keep pressing it because it only has to be 'yes', 'maybe', or even 'perhaps a tiny bit' ONCE and only ONCE for them to win. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-10-14 11:32 |
| #7 Skip you will never hear of those killed with seat belts on or die because of the seat belts. When it's the government you can't believe any numbers they come up with anyway. |
| Posted by: Dale 2015-10-14 10:43 |
| #6 They can write 1,000 articles. Each one will say exactly the same thing - someone committed a crime with a gun, so lets take guns away from the people who never have and never will commit a crime. The answer is no. Yesterday it was 'no,' and tomorrow it will still be 'no.' |
| Posted by: Iblis 2015-10-14 10:36 |
| #5 >The Second Amendment was and is to protect the people from their 'own' government. It failed. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2015-10-14 09:04 |
| #4 They surely never imagined a country where an amendment designed to keep the British from invading, The Constitutional protection of guns is only secondarily about keeping the British from invading: it contains no provision for a standing army, but instead expects the people to come together to resist threats. The reason there was no standing army was the well-founded concern that such an army could be used by the central government to suppress the people. The Second Amendment was and is to protect the people from their 'own' government. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2015-10-14 08:02 |
| #3 My home is my private gun club. The doors are always locked. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2015-10-14 05:52 |
| #2 The 2nd Amendment says "... shall not be infringed". Every single "gun control" initiative is purely about "infringing". Every attempt to "infringe" should be immediately killed off at birth. The only initiative that should ever be entertained is one to repeal the 2nd Amendment. See 21st Amendment (which repealed the 18th Amendment) as a precedent. I can just barely conceive of a day in which the 2nd Amendment might be facing repeal - but that is what it should take. All attempts to "infringe" should be strangled in their crib. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2015-10-14 04:13 |
| #1 seatbelts save lives, so we pass laws that require car drivers to buckle up, and accident-related deaths go down Apparent 'focus dementia'. Why does nobody talk about seat belts on the school bus any more? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2015-10-14 01:19 |