Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

Trump's Word Games


"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. And by the way, if she gets to pick her judges: Nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

Trump said these words. They're on video, as you can see here below:



What did Trump mean? Well, to us regular folk, it seems pretty clear that Trump was saying that if Hillary is elected, she will ban guns, and in that case, there will be nothing anyone can do... except for gun owners. What can those gun owners do after Hillary is elected that no one else can? Trump doesn't quite spell it out. But gun owners possess something that non-gun owners don't. What is that?

Well, according to a Trump statement:
That's right... gun owners have "the power of unification." In the event of a Hillary Clinton election, this "power of unification" will prevent her from naming judges that will take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminally inclined. 

He totes mcgoats wasn't suggesting that anyone shoot her. Gosh, dishonest media, where would anyone get that idea?

The uncomfortable laughter heard in the video above makes it clear that if this is what Trump meant, those in attendance sure didn't know it.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

The United States of Guns & Ammo


I was watching Rachel Maddow the other night, and she made at least one great point about gun control regulation.

The NRA doesn't want a watch list used to prevent somebody from getting a gun. They say the government could just put anyone it damn well pleased on that watch list--terrorist or not--and deny that person a weapon.

So Maddow suggested--and I'm paraphrasing--"Ok, so how about the FBI receives an alert any time someone on the watch list buys a gun?" This wingnut who murdered 50 human beings bought his gun 12 days before the massacre. What if the FBI could have gotten a text (or a notification!) and checked-in sometime throughout those 12 days? Given this guy a second look?

Would a limited bill like that at least win over the Reasonable Republican(s)?

It seems we might find out soon. After one of the longest filibusters in U.S. history, it seems Republicans in Congress are at least willing to put such a measure to a vote.

Maybe that still comes too close to spooky scary Minority Report-esque precognition for an organization as paranoid as the NRA to consider.

You either "violate" the "2nd amendment," or the 4th amendment, against unwarranted searches. In any case, it's a sad new low we've sunk to as a people if the best we can do after even more unnecessary bloodshed is say, "We'd still give him the gun, but we'd watch him!"

My "Middle Ground For Gun Control?" article reads like a comedy sketch right now. My satirical short play feels like it could happen somewhere in America tomorrow. Strange how time changes things. My occasional co-blogger, Robbie Republican, seems to be busy advising Donald Trump.

Welcome to the United States of Guns & Ammo, bought and paid for by the NRA.

Is there reason to hope that one day, we'll be able to keep guns out of the hands of murderers? Evan Wolfson seems to believe. Since 1983, he was at the forefront of the movement urging the government to recognize same sex marriages. Through a systematic offensive that engaged in debate on all levels of American political discourse, the goals of the gay community were finally realized in last June's Supreme Court decision.

The same strategy can work for sensible gun control, says Wolfson. "You never say you can’t do it. You never say it can’t happen. You never the give the opposition the satisfaction of walking way from the fight. You always have to be creating space for the decision-makers to rise to fairness, and to not have an excuse for inaction."

One key difference between the fight for gay rights and the fight for wackos not to get guns... Americans weren't getting slaughtered in the meantime.

"We will continue the pressure, and we will mobilize," Wolfson says. "Meanwhile, there is a cumulative effect. And if it didn’t crest after Newtown, it will keep accumulating."

How many lives will it take?

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

A Middle Ground For Gun Control: Gun Safety

A Nevada middle school is the latest tragic scene in a long line of school shootings. In Massachusetts, a 14 year-old is being sought for shooting a beloved teacher and disposing of her body behind in the woods. In Texas, a napping nanny left her gun lying around, and her 5-year-old charge accidentally killed himself with it.

In all these cases, the shooters who pulled the trigger didn't buy their weapons. They simply took them from someone who was careless enough to leave their guns easily accessible.

In the debate over gun control, 2nd-amendment advocates say we don't need more gun laws. They say that everything is working just fine. More gun laws will only punish law-abiding gun owners.

But here's the thing. With no laws mandating gun safety measures, a law-abiding citizen can easily leave their gun vulnerable to misuse by somebody else. Only after that gun is used in a tragedy can they be brought up on any charges. Perhaps if laws were in place that were proactive rather than reactive, those people would have kept their guns better secured.

There are many easy solutions. Easy to implement, that is. At least if the gun lobby actually wants to stop their favorite product from making headlines for killing kids.

1. Require gun locks. Gun advocates argue that gun locks are cumbersome in case of an emergency. Okay, maybe. But requiring gun locks on weapons doesn't stop a gun owner from keeping their weapon unlocked when it's attended to. Need the security of that gun in your nightstand when you're going to bed? Sure, leave the gun unlocked while you're right next to it with your bedroom door closed. But when you leave the house, when your kids are playing near by, when you're out running errands... you have a lock on your gun which makes sure nobody else can use it in your absence.

2. Require gun safety classes. Right now, anyone without a criminal record can purchase a weapon. Okay, great. But there are a ton of idiots out there who... well, will think nothing of leaving a gun lying out while a 5-year-old is around. Requiring a gun safety course before a weapon can be purchased won't weed out all the idiots, but it will do two things. One, it will establish a longer period of contact between a gun purchaser and another party-- possibly enough to raise red flags if it seems that gun purchaser may intend to harm someone. Two, it assures that a gun purchaser has at least been taught basic safety and use of the dangerous product they're buying. Not all of the safety issues surrounding guns are immediately obvious-- for instance, if you hold the gun incorrectly, you're likely to break your finger due to the bolt action/hammer engaging. Or you may just shoot yourself not realizing that there's a bullet in the chamber after removing the ammo clip.

3. Offer incentives to gun companies to add gun safety features. Gun manufacturers have plenty of incentive to make their weapons more accurate, lighter, more deadly. One start-up even makes a gun that doesn't require aiming! The thing is, they don't have similar incentive to add safety features to their guns-- the truth is, people who buy guns buy them FOR safety... they don't worry about anything that makes their gun "safer." Giving gun companies a financial incentive to develop smart triggers and other ways to make sure a gun is only fired by authorized users could change the marketplace in a way that doesn't draw 2nd-amendment advocates' ire.

None of these solutions is a panacea... but they are realistic proposals that don't give gun enthusiasts much to complain about. They're basic safety precautions that don't rise to the level of gun licensing or restriction. Instead, they seek to promote responsible behavior. They won't stop gun violence, not by a longshot... but these policies can reduce the cases of gun violence that use a carelessly secured weapon, which is a goal that both gun control advocates and the gun lobby should be able to agree with.

UPDATE: Some gun owners on Reddit gave me some enlightening responses, which I want to briefly address.

As several commenters pointed out, most guns do come with some kind of lock. However:
"Trigger locks can be defeated with zip ties or a set of car keys. You are angling to create legislation just to create a false sense of security."
Well... a lock that's easily pickable? That's a problem, no? We can't beef these up? Well, no, because...
"Adding "safety features" to guns makes them less safe. It makes them more complicated and difficult to use, which means you are more likely to have a broken(dangerous) gun, or not be able to use it properly(also dangerous)."
The concern here seems to be, if someone breaks into your home, and is standing over your bed, you don't want to have to fiddle with a gun lock. I get that. But what about when you leave the gun at home, unattended? Leaving it unlocked presents a big hazard. Requiring a key to start your automobile doesn't prevent you from driving, and despite how "complicated" a key ignition system is, it rarely malfunctions.
"Could I just point out that each of these cases seem to involve criminal negligence(which as the term "criminal" might indicate, is illegal), and one case is attempted/successful murder?(also illegal) So the law already discourages and punishes this behaviour."
My issue with this argument is, irresponsible gun owners don't expect their guns to be used in a crime. They don't leave their guns unattended despite the possibility of being charged for criminal negligence. The act of being irresponsible with a gun, by itself, is not illegal, so one may think nothing of the possible implications of a possible crime in a possible future. If leaving a gun unattended and unlocked were illegal, then it might get people to think twice. Of course, enforcing that law would be nearly impossible in practice-- which is why I'm not advocating for it. I'm only for putting the onus on gun manufacturers to encourage gun responsibility by making gun locks a mandatory on every gun and pushing for the development of reliable and secure smart triggers. Apple figured out how to use your thumb to turn on your phone, smart triggers shouldn't be too much of a stretch.
 We're beyond the "middle ground" already. Gun owners have been the only ones giving in and compromising since 1934.
Guns are a lot different now than in 1934. A lot, lot different than they were in 1776 also. In order to pull off a mass shooting in 1776, you'd have to have about 12 muskets on you. So its a bit naive to think that as technology develops, the law should stay exactly the same. There are legitimate concerns about how modern advances have transformed our forefathers' shotguns into the modern weapons of today, weapons that have capabilities not designed for sport hunting or self-defense, but for warfare.
"The truth is there are more gun owning parents than pool owning parents but more kids drown every year by a large margin. If this is a humanistic appeal that has nothing to do with personal motivations to control, influence, or inconvenience all members of a hobby then you will be happy to know you can drop this devisive issue and save more lives by legislating pool ownership."
No kid takes a swimming pool to school and kills dozens of kids. Everything has its dangers, yes, but not everything is designed to kill. That's what a gun is. It is designed to kill. We shouldn't pretend otherwise because it's convenient for our argument. A gun is one of the only things with the capability of inflicting mass casualties in a short period of time, much more so than a knife (which requires close proximity and some degree of physical superiority). The other things on that list? Cars, bombs, poisons... things that are all regulated to some degree. It's fair for someone to believe that gun access should be unfettered, but its pretty disingenuous to compare apples to oranges by equating guns with pool ownership.
"Yo, 2003 called, they want their web design back. "
 Burn.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Guns Out of Control


Bear with me.

There are many different types of hammers. There's the square, spiked one used for tenderizing meat. There's the flat-head one used for hammering nails. There's the ball-peen hammer used for metalwork. The sledgehammer for breaking down walls.

You can use the wrong hammer for a job and still get it done, but you'll have a harder time, maybe cause some damage you didn't intend.

No one would ban hammers just because someone uses a hammer to kill. This is because, obviously, the hammer is not well-designed for such a thing, and the vast majority of people use hammers safely.

Now, there are many different types of guns. There are guns designed for personal protection. There are guns designed for hunting. Then there are guns designed to kill a maximum number of targets in a minimum amount of time.

Guns of this last type, assault weapons, were originally designed for the U.S. military to fit certain battle specifications. Even though the models sold to the public have been modified to conform to gun laws (mainly, they've been made semi-automatic), the fact remains--they are designed for bloodbaths. That is their designed purpose. Sure, you can use an assault rifle to hunt, or for home protection, or to shoot up targets at the range. But that's not what it was designed for. You're using a hammer that's been specifically forged to kill many people.

So we should not be surprised when a gun designed for massacres is used to carry out its intended purpose. You can argue that "guns don't kill people, people do," but that argument falls apart when the weapon was built with killing lots of people in mind. What you've done is provide the perfect tool for the job.

Like hammer owners, the vast majority of gun owners don't use their guns to kill. They argue that their guns are designed for defense or sport, and that's what they use them for. But assault weapons? They're called "assault" for a reason.

You don't want to ban all guns? Fine. Other weapons may have their place (that's another argument for another day). But saying a weapon that is designed to produce mass casualties won't produce mass casualties when owned by civilians is an argument that doesn't make a lick of sense. We're talking about something with the capacity to end many lives in seconds. Who cares if some people use it to shoot for fun at trees? They're the ones using it WRONG--like using a sledgehammer to build a birdhouse. The school shooters and movie theater shooters? They are the ones using these assault weapons correctly--though they're targeting American civilians, not Taliban.

What I'm saying is, why not ban these things, knowing that they're effectively designed tools for mass murder? It won't stop deaths from gun violence, or even school shootings. But what it will do is save lives. Just like it's harder to drive a nail with a ball-peen hammer, and it's harder to inflict mass casualties without the tool designed for it.Take away the tool, and they'll be forced to find something less deadly to use.

Don't we all win?

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Gun Control Anyone?

"The Muhs were known to police and have previous arrests..."

Yet they owned a shotgun.

Which they used.

To kill a 7-year-old boy.
The two cars stopped on the county-owned road outside the Muhs' home so one of the boys could go to the bathroom by the side of the road.

That's when, DeFoor said, the couple ran out of their house.

"Sheila Muhs started cursing at them 'Get off our property,'" DeFoor said and fired off at least one round, causing the Jeep, which had started to leave, to veer off the road.

Muhs, he said, then put the shotgun down and chased after the Jeep on her all-terrain vehicle, eventually catching up to it on the levee about 100 yards away, the ATVs headlights pointed at the Jeep.

While that was happening, DeFoor said Gayle Muhs picked up the discarded shotgun and fired at the SUV. DeFoor said the trajectory of that shot showed that the back of the SUV was sprayed with pellets, it's rear window blown out.

"The SUV was in the process to flee," the officer said.

Nelton told the Houston Chronicle that they yelled at the Muhs after the first shot that they had kids in the car and to stop shooting, but another gunshot -- possibly more -- is all they heard in return.
There's a problem in this country when known criminals, who threaten to shoot to kill, are allowed firearms.

You can't tell me that's what our founding fathers wanted.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Guns For Everyone

Should Students Be Able To Carry Guns On Campus?

Armed and Ridiculous
A short play by Adam

Scene: A classroom. Students mulling around, TEACHER prepares, writes some notes on the blackboard.

(bell rings)

TEACHER
Alright class, everyone take your seats.

They don’t respond. MICHAEL faces the teacher.

MICHAEL
Why don’t you take your seat?

TEACHER
Why I…
(is about to scold, thinks better of it)
Quite right, Michael. I must lead by example.
(sits in chair)

MICHAEL
Very good. Gold star for you!

The class laughs.

TEACHER
Well, if it’s okay with all of you… I’d like to begin class.

WILLIAM
Go ahead.
(sits at desk)

TEACHER
Good. Well, where were we? I believe we were on chapter six in your textbooks. Polynomials.

BRIDGET
Can we skip that?

SCOTT
Yeah I don’t want to do that.

MICHAEL
Me neither.

TEACHER
(laughs nervously)Who needs Polynomials anyway?
(tosses lesson plan aside)
Perhaps chapter seven? Combining complex equations?

MARY
Let’s watch a movie!

SCOTT
Night of the Living Dead!

BRIDGET
We watched that last week, Scott.

SCOTT
So?

BRIDGET
It’s a stupid movie.

SCOTT
You’re stupid, Bridget.

BRIDGET
Oh yeah?

They simultaneously reach down towards their sides. Teacher quickly stands up.

TEACHER
(tense)
Okay! Okay, everybody, settle down, settle down. There’s no need for that. Scott, I think Night of the Living Dead is an excellent, excellent film. But perhaps you’d be gracious enough to let one of your classmates suggest an alternative today?

SCOTT
(glaring at Bridget, removes hand from side)
I guess.

TEACHER
Good. Bridget?

BRIDGET
Legally Blonde.

SCOTT
I’d rather be shot in the head.

BRIDGET
Be careful what you wish for.

TEACHER
(nervous)Okay, okay. None of that talk. Nobody’s shooting anybody. Not today, no sir. How about this. Today, Legally Blonde, tomorrow, Enter the Dragon.

MICHAEL
Cool.

SCOTT
Fine by me.

BRIDGET
Okay.

Rest of class assents.

TEACHER
See what happens when we negotiate with words? Everyone can get along.

A gunshot is heard. Everyone takes out their guns. Teacher is terrified.

TEACHER
Class, please, calm down, probably just an accidental discharge, happens all the time.

MICHAEL
(moving towards stage right, the door)I’ll take point, Mary, you cover me.

MARY
You got it.

SCOTT
I’ll set up a flanking maneuver.

BRIDGET
Ooh! I finally get to use my new pink pistol!

TEACHER
Class, please, everyone, stay where you are!

More gunshots are heard.

MICHAEL
(points out a few of his classmates)
You, you and you. I want standard triangle assault formation. We engage on my count.

THREE STUDENTS
Got it. Sure. No problem.

TEACHER
Everybody. The police will handle this!

MICHAEL
(approaches stage right, the door, grabs handle)
Ready?

Michael's assault team nods.

MICHAEL
Go! Go!

Michael leads Mary, Scott, Bridget, and the three other students off stage right, out the door. More gunshots are heard.

TEACHER
(runs over, closes door, turns to face class)
Please, everybody, put the guns away. We’ll be safe in here.

STUDENT #1
Like those kids at Columbine?

STUDENT #2
Or those kids at Virginia Tech?

TEACHER
Those were two, isolated incidents. And the vast majority stayed safe by simply staying put.

STUDENT #3
My Dad says people who stay put are easy targets.

STUDENT #4
My brother said if you’re going to die, you might as well die fighting.

TEACHER
No one is going to die! It’s probably just… a car backfiring. Or a stack of books got knocked down. No one is going to die!

More gunshots. Suddenly, STUDENT #5 shoots STUDENT #1. He falls to the floor. Other students turn towards him.

STUDENT #5
I… I… didn’t mean to… I was nervous… My finger slipped.

TEACHER
Everybody… everybody.. it was just an accident…

The students fire in unison, killing Student #5. Teacher throws up his arms.

STUDENT #6
(turns angrily at student #4)
Ow! You shot me!

STUDENT #4
Did not, it was him!
(points at another student)

TEACHER
Please! The police will be here any minute and they’ll sort this out.

STUDENT #3
What if the school shooter isn’t out there… what if he’s in here?

TEACHER
That doesn’t make any sense.

STUDENT #4
Sure it does. Don’t you see? There’s two of them. Like Harris and Klebold. One of them is out there, shooting the people in the hall. And that guy over there is the other one, pretending to be one of us.

STUDENT #7
It wasn’t me! My gun isn’t even loaded.
My mom won’t let me buy any bullets.

The class laughs at him. He puts his head down, ashamed.

STUDENT #4
If he didn’t shoot him, then who did?

The students all train their guns on one another, eyeing each other suspiciously.

TEACHER
No one shot anyone. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.
The police will be here soon. I think I even hear the sirens.

The class strains to hear. The teacher covers his mouth, desperately tries to make a siren sound.

STUDENT #4
Enough of this. There’s only one way to find out who the shooter is.

STUDENT #3
How?

STUDENT #4
We all close our eyes, and fire. God will guide the bullets towards the killer.

STUDENT #7
Of course! God!

STUDENT #3
God!

STUDENT #6
(dying)
God...

TEACHER
Oh God… Please, don’t do this.

The class closes their eyes.

STUDENT #4
On my count. Five…

TEACHER
(gets down to the floor)
God help us!

STUDENT #4
Four… Three…

The door opens, everyone opens their eyes. BRIDGET limps in, holding her pink gun. Her leg is bleeding.

TEACHER
Bridget, are you alright? What happened out there?

BRIDGET
Oh, it was terrible. There was blood and guts everywhere.
It was like… Night of the Living Dead.

STUDENT #3
Did you get the shooter?

BRIDGET
There was no shooter. Just a car backfiring in the driveway outside. But Michael thought someone was shooting at us, so he shot at the car. And then the man in the car shot back. And then Mary went down. Some kids from the other class thought we were attacking the school, so they started shooting at us. Timmy, Jimmy and Kimmy all went down. And then Scott got mad at William because he started the whole thing, so he shot William. And then I shot Scott.

TEACHER
Why’d you shoot Scott?

BRIDGET
Well… everyone was shooting.

STUDENT #3
So there never was no school shooter?

TEACHER
(attempts to correct him)
“Never was any…”
(Student points gun at teacher, he zips his lips)

BRIDGET
No, I guess not.

STUDENT #4
No shooter out there. But somebody shot our friend. Someone in here.

STUDENT #6
I’m… dying…Please, someone…call a hospital.

STUDENT #4
We’re kind of in the middle of something.
(Student #6 dies)
Now where were we?

STUDENT #2
At three.

STUDENT #4
Right. Ready?

Teacher crawls behind desk.

TEACHER
Just like last semester…

STUDENT #4
Three… two… one…

The stage lights die as a fusillade of bullets and screams are heard.

Friday, May 18, 2007

God I Love My Gun

Robbie

By Robbie Republican

I had a nightmare last night.

Gays were getting married. Hillary Clinton was President. They were selling RU-486 at the candy store. People were running naked in the streets, burning American flags and worshipping Osama Bin Laden. Keith Olbermann had overtaken Bill O'Reilly in the ratings.

But worst of all, I couldn't shoot any of them. My gun was gone. My precious, precious gun. Confiscated by the People's Army.

I woke up in a cold sweat and immediately reached under my pillow. My heart calmed down when I realized Robbie Jr. was still safe and sound, and fully loaded. Just a terrible dream.

After Virginia Tech, Columbine, Nickel Mines, Jonesboro, Simon's Rock, and all those other school shootings, the liberal elite bathed in the blood of the victims and besmirched their memory by using these tragedies to argue that guns should be banned. I, for one, am not going to stand by and let these pinkos use the violent deaths of schoolchildren to further their socialist agenda. Instead, I'm going to honor those brave students who gave their lives. By using this tragedy to argue for more guns, better guns, bigger guns.

I just came back from the Fairfax County Gun Raffle, just a hop, skip and a jump away from Virginia Tech. It was a blast. Nothing says a good time like a room full of guys packing heat. I have to tell you, I was a bit disappointed I didn't win the 45-caliber Para Ordnance PX745E semiautomatic handgun. It would have made a nice bed buddy for my Beretta.

But of course, those damn Virginia Tech parents had to bring down the mood with their little protest. All that crying. "My dead son" this and "My dead daughter" that. Come on guys, we're trying to have a gun party here. Save the sobbing for the cemetery you homos.

I wish those parents would look at the situation with a clear head, like those folks in South Carolina. If everyone on the Virginia Tech campus was allowed to carry a gun, then the massacre would have never happened. Cho Chun Chi would have started shooting and somebody would have popped a cap in his ass. But nooooo. The teachers are too scared that if you allow guns on campus, some kid is going to go crazy and start shooting up the school. What are the chances of that???

If everyone in America was armed, this country would be a much safer place. Just look at the idyllic community of Wake Island. Everyone there owns a gun, and there's been no crime there since we kicked the Japs out and made it into a military base.

So lets start arming babies with guns. And giving guns away for free with Happy Meals. And the guns should have spreadfire capabilities, in order to take down several school shooters at once. You can never be too careful.

The second amendment is clear. Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms-- every man, woman, child and orangutan. And I won't rest until that right becomes a requirement. Because I love America, and I love it too much to let it become my worst nightmare: France. Good luck defending your freedom with a baguette, hippie.

Thanks for listening. As always, I'm Robbie Republican. American Patriot.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

School Shooter Speaks Out

The people who do these things are people who don’t want contact. They wouldn’t be capable of going out there and stabbing people to death. But there’s such a disconnect when you’re using a gun. You don’t even feel like you’re killing anybody. The fact that I was able to buy a rifle in 15 minutes, that’s absurd. I was 18. I couldn’t have rented a car to drive home from school, yet I could purchase a rifle.

--Wayne Lo, who shot up his campus in 1992
Lo spoke to Newsweek about the Virgina Tech shooting. The question raised is, how is it possible that 16 years later, it's no harder for a wacko to buy a gun?

[UPDATE] At least me and our corrupt, lying, unqualified Attorney General agree on something.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Pundits Call Students Cowards

John Derbyshire
Strange, John Derbyshire Reminds Me Of Someone...

In a previous post, I noted that some bloggers responding to the Virginia Tech tragedy are as delusional as the gunman himself. These people believe that if we eliminated the 30 day waiting period between buying handguns and allowed students to carry guns around, the VT murderer WOULD NOT HAVE carried out his plan sooner and easier, but WOULD HAVE, in their view, been stopped in his tracks.

The VT Killer bought his guns in a matter of minutes at a local gun shop, no questions asked (despite the fact that every person ever to meet the kid says there was something "off" about him). But according to the gun crazy right wingers, HE SHOULD GOTTEN A GUN EVEN EASIER!!!!

Can you imagine what chaos would have ensued had the cops entered the building and been faced with dozens of students running around with guns? "Which one's the shooter!?!?!" "Drop your weapon!!' "You too!!!" "No, not you!!"

Somehow, this heated Mexican standoff scenario escapes the imagination of these wackos. But then again, many of them voted for George W. Bush, so they aren't exactly rational people to begin with.

But even worse than the gun nuts (at least they have an ideology), are the keyboard warriors who claim that, if they were there, they would have gone Bruce Lee on the gunman's ass, taking him out with a few well placed karate chops. These self-proclaimed deskchair heroes blame the Virginia Tech students for letting the massacre get out of hand. Like Nathanael Blake, who writes:

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.
and John Derbyshire OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW (a supposedly legitimate publication), who writes:

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.
No, John and Nathanael's comments were not a misguided attempt at humor. These guys were serious.

First off, no one in Norris Hall that day had any idea a shooting was going to take place. Unlike John and Nathanael, who know every detail about the gunman, down to the caliber of the bullets he was shooting, those sitting in their classrooms that day HAD NO IDEA WHO OR WHAT WAS OUTSIDE.

The building does not have transparent walls. And the classrooms did not have a sophisticated communications network where every movement of the killer was traced and relayed. The sound of gunshots and screams were the only knowledge anyone had about the situation. For all anyone in the building knew, there were multiple gunmen. The police themselves didn't rule out a second gunman until much, much later that day.

Secondly, although I'm glad John Dickhead has terrible aim, how is someone under fire expected to make that rationalization? Once again, for all the students knew, the shooter was a crack shot, a wacked out soldier from one of the area's military families. The human instinct is to avoid gunfire, not run towards it. Soldiers, armed to the teeth, take cover when an enemy fires upon them. Police hide behind bullet shields. Are we really supposed to expect an unarmed, untrained kid to do what even a soldier or policeman wouldn't??

One of the commenters on Nathaniel's blog says he teaches his kid to stand up for himself. That's great, when you have to stand up to a bully in the schoolyard. But when a guy with multiple guns is on a killing spree, it might be best to tell your kid to run away. That is, if you want your kid to live.

Thirdly, both Nathanael and John cite the passengers on flight 93 as an example we should all follow. There's just a myriad of problems with this. I'll name the two most obvious.

1. The passengers of flight 93 are dead.

2. The passengers of flight 93 KNEW they were going to die.

Due to cell phone conversations, the passengers on flight 93 knew the other planes had crashed into buildings. They assumed, correctly, that they were headed into a building themselves. They only had two options. Sit and die and let a bunch of other people die... or fight and maybe save themselves, but most likely, die while saving countless others.

But the Virginia Tech students had many more options available. They were in a situation where their death was not a foregone conclusion. They could save themselves by escaping, by hiding, by playing dead. And they did, and they're alive because of it. To ask one or several of them to sacrifice their own life without even knowing if it would in fact save anybody, is an unreasonable demand.

There's a good chance many more of the 32 victims (and the many injured) did rush the shooter. We've only heard of a few that blocked the door, but that's due to the fact that they're either alive or were witnessed by people who survived. Who's to say that one of those kids who died alone in the hallway wasn't rushing towards the gunman when the bullets started flying?

Both John and Nathanael have clearly never felt the paralyzing effects of fear. Maybe they've watched too many action movies, played too many hours of Halo 2, or smoked too much crystal meth. But to me, their brash, self-promoting, moronic statements are far worse than anything Don Imus said. They're blaming the friends and classmates of the dead, and the dead themselves, for a tragedy no one could have anticipated or stopped. Maybe making comments like that makes John and Nathanael feel like big men, but ultimately, their words reveal what sad, pathetic, lonely men these two really are. They declare themselves heroes without having ever done anything heroic.

My heart goes out to all those in mourning. And to anyone made to feel guilty about all this, remember that we can't spend the present trying to predict the future and change the past. No one could have known what was going to happen, and no one can change what did. The only thing we know for sure is that we have today, and it goes by too quick to waste it on should haves and could haves.

And to John and Nathanael, I hope that one day, you'll get to follow your own advice and run straight towards a guy firing bullets at you.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Gun Nuts Relish VT Tragedy

Crazy
Gun Lovers Fail To See How The Above Is Insane

While most sane individuals would view what happened today at Virginia Tech as evidence that current gun control laws are ineffective, there are others who feel the whole disaster could have been averted if there WERE MORE GUNS.

[Update] John Derbyshire says it's the victims' own fault they're dead.

According to these wackjobs, if everyone at Virginia Tech had a gun, then they could have shot the gunman before his rampage got out of control.

Yes, the gaps in logic astound. A student with a gun killed 33 people. So the solution is... make it easier for students to get guns??? So every crazy kid with a revenge fantasy can bring his hand cannon to biology class? It's ok, as long as some of the good kids have guns. Let the bullets fly and let God sort em out!!!

Back in the place where most of us live--Reality--more access to guns doesn't mean more good people defending themselves with guns. It means more bad people can get guns easier.

If Columbine and today's massacre at Virginia Tech have shown us anything, it's that existing gun laws have not prevented insane kids from obtaining firearms and using them to slaughter innocent people. The Columbine kids got their weapons without so much as a background check. How easy was it for the gunman of today's shooting to get his gun?? If you're a law abiding citizen with no plans to murder somebody, shouldn't you be willing to endure extra security hurdles to buy a gun? Shouldn't you be willing to be held responsible if your weapon is stolen or used in a killing? Maybe that would make you lock it away a little better. Maybe gun sellers would think twice before selling a gun to a shady buyer.

Until we make gun sellers, gun manufacturers, and gun owners responsible for the devastation their weapons may cause, tragedies like this are inevitable.

Stay Strong VT

Visitor Map: