They have to change
Posted by Richard on December 17, 2012
Sunday evening, President Obama said in reaction to the NewTown, Connecticut, massacre that “we have to change.” He was right.
Obama and those who think like him have to change.
They have to abandon their irrational belief that laws are magic.
They have to realize that making someplace a “gun-free zone” doesn’t make the people there safer — it makes them less safe, because it only affects the peaceful, law-abiding, and harmless.
They have to admit that banning some weapon or weapons won’t deter madmen, terrorists, or other predators because it only affects the peaceful, law-abiding, and harmless.
Three decades ago, after a series of PLO terrorist attacks on schools, the Israelis realized that the only way to stop such attacks was to arm the adults at those schools. Are we too stupid to learn the lesson learned by those Israelis — that you stop someone from shooting your children by shooting back?
The problem at Sandy Hook Elementary school wasn’t too many guns — it was too few. The only guns in the school were in the hands of the deranged predator, Adam Lanza.
School principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach rushed Lanza in an attempt to stop him, but they were unarmed and defenseless. Lanza shot them down. Teacher Victoria Soto stood between Lanza and the door behind which her students were hiding. She too was gunned down.
What if Hochsprung, Sherlach, or Soto had had a .38 revolver and had been trained to use it? Could one of them have put two slugs center-mass into Lanza before he shot anyone else? We’ll never know.
But we do know this: the only way Lanza could have been stopped is if someone in that school had shot him.
Obama and those who think like him have to change.
They have to recognize that laws won’t keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. And they have to recognize that weapons in the hands of the good guys, and the will to use them, will save lives.
David Aitken said
Perhaps we should start treating the mentally ill like we do gun owners. If you’re mentally ill, you have to undergo a background check and wait 14 days before going out in public while they recheck you. Or vice-versa.
Richard said
Are you sure you want the current leadership of this country deciding who should be locked up for mental health reasons? They think anyone who’s opposed to banning “assault weapons” is crazy. Heck, they thing anyone who’s opposed to raising taxes on the rich is crazy.
David Aitken said
Well, no. There’s a huge double standard here. I said “Or vice-versa.” We ought to let the gun owners run around and do whatever they want, just like the mentally ill do. Guess I should have added a /sarc tag.
What percent of the mentally ill would be in jail if we did background checks on them?
Richard said
🙂
Rick Shultz said
I get angry and depressed every time everytime something like this happens, and not just because it’s revolting to me that someone could do this to 6 or 7 year old child, but also because I know it’s going to bring all the leftist moonbats out of the woodwork screaming for gun bans again. How these people can attribute human properties to an inanimate object, and then insult and castigate other people who point out the obvious flaws in their anthropomorphic nonsense is beyond me. And Piers Morgan may be the worst dumbfuck of the whole bunch. I would dearly love to punch him right in his stupid British mouth. As a gun owner who is VERY pro 2nd amendment, even I can see that something is going to HAVE to be done. But it has GOT to be something sensible and not another draconian gun ban that will accomplish nothing. Before last Friday, I would not even have entertained the notion of either of the two suggestions that I’ve been arguing in favor of, but now I feel that it’s time. We have to: 1. Close the gun show loophole. Of course if you talk to the NRA, they will deny vehemently that a gun show loophole exists, but it’s time to admit that it DOES exist and close it. A couple of guys with computers and internet access and a NICS password will do that. 2. We need to give private individuals access to NICS as well, and require them to run a background on anyone they sell a gun to. And there will have to be teeth in it. If you sell a gun to somebody who commits a crime with it and you didn’t do the background check, then you do time the same as him. About 3-5 years ought to provide enough deterrance. I don’t see anything wrong with universal background checks, and I don’t see anything in either of these two plans that really infringes on anyone’s second amendment rights. I might even buy into some VERY limited type of standardized psychological test designed to spot GROSS deviations from an established norm, but it would have to be VERY well designed and able to garner at least 85% of the vote in both houses, not just a simple majority. This problem can be solved but it’s going to take a change in people’s perception of it. We have to finally understand that it’s just as Robert Heinlein said, “There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, there are only dangerous people.”
Richard said
Rick, I’m saddened and disappointed that you’re spouting such nonsense. The so-called “gun show loophole” (which, by the way, no longer exists in Colorado — a fact of no consolation to the victims of the Aurora theater shooting) is nothing more than the right of private individuals to engage in peaceful and mutually agreeable exchanges without the interference of a tyrannical government.
In fact, the whole nonsense of mandating “background checks” — whether the sellers are private individuals, gun stores, or what have you — is a gross violation of the right of contract. Show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to control, regulate, or limit the right of any person or company to sell a firearm.
Rick Shultz said
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree on this I guess. I just don’t happen to think it’s nonsense. There may NOT be a gun show loophole in Colorado, but there sure as hell IS one in Tennessee and it’s huge. There are damn near more unlicensed gun dealers in Tennesse than there are licensed ones. And they sell guns to drug dealers, criminals and plug uglies on a daily basis. And they all depend on the right of contract that you so ardently defend to get away with it. And what’s wrong with introducing a little responsibilty for your actions into this? I don’t know if I could live with the idea that I sold a gun to somebody who went home with it and proceeded to massacre his family. I’d love to know if the guy who wants to buy a gun that I’ve decided to sell has a record, but as things stand unless I pay good money to run a background check on some web site that charges to do it, then I just don’t know. And even if I decide to spend the money to do it, most of the websites that I’ve seen that do this only check the guy’s record in the state you specify. This is the reason why I won’t sell a gun to an individual. Sorry Richard, but I don’t see anything nonsensical about people taking responsibilty for what they do. You’ll just have to forgive me if I don’t see what is so sacred about the right of contract that we have to allow it to take precedence over not letting an individual who shouldn’t have a gun get his hands on one and kill 20 children. You do agree don’t you that there ARE certain people who should not be allowed access to firearms? Given the conditions that prevail at present, what would you suggest we do to keep criminals and psychos from getting their hands on firearms? Bearing in mind of course that the present system doesn’t seem to work too well.
Richard said
Apparently, you’re unable to show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to control, regulate, or limit the right of any person or company to sell a firearm. And yet you think it should exercise that power anyway. So apparently, you don’t think the Constitution should limit the power of the federal government. An interesting position for someone who’s long prided himself as being an anarchist. 🙂
Rick Shultz said
I don’t believe that I said anywhere that I thought that the government should be able to limit a person’s right to sell a firearm, and I don’t believe that a requirement to do a background check really consitutes a significant limit. Since I don’t believe that ensuring that someone exercises the responsibilty that goes with the right to sell a firearm consitutues a limit, then I don’t believe that it compromises my political philosophy either. Besides, if we are going to split hairs here, I read article one pretty carefully, and I couldn’t find the part that specifically grants any “right of contract”. And quite frankly, it saddens me that you seem to be so obssessed with a right that I can’t find stated anywhere as to be willing to abdicate the responsibilty of not selling a gun to someone who, for all you know, is buying it to commit murder with.
Olivia said
Have you been paying attention to mainstream news at all? It’s been wall-to-wall Gun Violence Assault Weapon Have A Conversation Gun Control Gun Control Gun Control for three days running. We’re now the counterulture; time to start acting like one so people catch on.
Richard said
I like the idea of an AR-15 “assault weapon” with a tie-dye stock. 🙂