Gun rights die-hards have really found themselves in a pickle these past couple weeks. In light of the tragic Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, where 20 six- and seven-year old kids were shot and killed by a man with a .223 Bushmaster, gun control measures have been gaining steam both in the eyes of the American public and Congress. Of course, the words "gun control" to these very gun rights die-hards are the equivalent to the words "I'm pregnant" to 99.43% of the adult male population. Without even thinking about what the possible legislation could be, many of these gun rights activists immediately go into a panic when hearing the words "gun control." To them, there seems to be only one gun control measure on the table and that's to take everyone's guns away. That's right. If the government passes any gun control measure, they'll send people door-to-door all across the country and take away our guns, even super-soakers. Of course, this isn't in the least bit accurate. When people were required to pass a written, visual, and driver's test to attain a license, was that stripping them of their driving rights? When people's driving records get looked at before being handed a license, was that stripping them of their driving rights? No, it was simply making us safer by placing the people at large in the best possible situation, where the irresponsible and dangerous drivers were limited in their legal capability of operating a motor vehicle - leaving others less apt to being a victim of their recklessness. Would this be 100% effective at rooting out all the irresponsible and dangerous drivers? No, of course not. Would it prevent all such individuals from illegally getting behind the wheel and driving? No again. However, it would help lessen such risks. How's this all that different from many gun control measures? It's not the responsible, law-abiding citizens whom are at risk of losing gun rights. It's those that aren't responsible, mentally-stable, and law-abiding whom have a lot to worry about. Would such measures be 100% effective at halting gun crimes? I wish that would be the case, but it's not, unfortunately. Would they prevent people from illegally obtaining firearms? No again. Once again, though, it would decrease the chance of those events from taking place. Gun control advocates don't want to take the guns away from responsible, law-abiding gun owners, just as we don't want to take cars away from responsible, law-abiding drivers. We just want to increase the probability of the people at large being safe and secure wherever they may reside through increasing the strictness of gun laws to people whom have a history of violence, aren't mentally-stable, responsible, or law-abiding. Just like I wouldn't want a 100-year old blind man owning a car, I wouldn't want an unmedicated man with bipolar disorder, who has a history of violence, owning a gun.
Since the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, gun rights die-hards have attempted to alter the focus from needing stricter gun laws to needing more guns for protection and fearing the federal government. In addition to fear, they've tended to resort to hyperbole, fallacy, and slogans, with a hint of anarchy. Their latest defense is the following Facebook post, which says the following:
"San Antonio Theater Shooting
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater [Maggie: he also shot someone in the parking lot on the way over] so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
Just thought you’d like to know.
I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons."
First off, upon fact-checking this on Snopes.com, not all of this report is accurate. I guess the shooter's ex-girlfriend wasn't even present at this restaurant in San Antonio, so it would have been quite difficult for him to have shot her in it. It's like the hypothetical time I was accused of cheating on my girlfriend with a woman while in San Diego, even though I was in Kansas City.
Inaccuracies aside, though, this post is weak (at best) at defending the notion that more guns equals less crime. That's been a major talking point for gun rights activists throughout the years - if more people had been armed during a shooting spree, not as many fatalities would have occurred. Yes, because just before I head to a movie or go to class at an elementary school, I always think to myself, "I should bring a gun!"
That isn't even the worst part about the post, though. First off, I love how the post concludes that, "...the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun..."
Right, so each and every place we travel, we need a "good person with a gun" there to protect us. At church, grocery stores, movie theaters, in our bedrooms while we're sleeping, voting booths, a skating rink, a graveyard, an airport, a doughnut shop, and beyond - we need a "good person with a gun on hand to protect us!" No, that's not going to cost taxpayers a thing and won't increase the chance of this country turning into a police-state at all...
The worst part about this post is the fact the hero with a gun in this story was an off-duty cop. It's her job to be trained in shooting a firearm and protecting people. It's not like some random person named Chuck Limpy, who's partially blind, completely deaf, has never shot a firearm, and just decided to take his gun to a movie which he wouldn't be able to see very well nor hear at all, shot the perpetrator of this crime. No, an off-duty cop did. So, due to this chance occurrence of a trained cop with a gun playing the role of hero while off-duty, this means that more people (trained or untrained - that is of no relevance apparently, so long as they're "good") should bring a gun with them wherever they go.
It's just like in the story I'm about to make up, where a woman goes into labor at a restaurant and an off-duty doctor is there to deliver the baby. From this point on, I'd highly recommend that whenever people go out, be sure to bring some latex gloves, a couple nurses, and children will be much safer as a result. Another possible result of this is that there will likely be a new nationwide phenomenon of people busting out random porno shoots, which will be called, "Two Nurses and a Doctor with Latex."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting_n_2315139.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp
Since the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, gun rights die-hards have attempted to alter the focus from needing stricter gun laws to needing more guns for protection and fearing the federal government. In addition to fear, they've tended to resort to hyperbole, fallacy, and slogans, with a hint of anarchy. Their latest defense is the following Facebook post, which says the following:
"San Antonio Theater Shooting
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater [Maggie: he also shot someone in the parking lot on the way over] so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
Just thought you’d like to know.
I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons."
First off, upon fact-checking this on Snopes.com, not all of this report is accurate. I guess the shooter's ex-girlfriend wasn't even present at this restaurant in San Antonio, so it would have been quite difficult for him to have shot her in it. It's like the hypothetical time I was accused of cheating on my girlfriend with a woman while in San Diego, even though I was in Kansas City.
Inaccuracies aside, though, this post is weak (at best) at defending the notion that more guns equals less crime. That's been a major talking point for gun rights activists throughout the years - if more people had been armed during a shooting spree, not as many fatalities would have occurred. Yes, because just before I head to a movie or go to class at an elementary school, I always think to myself, "I should bring a gun!"
That isn't even the worst part about the post, though. First off, I love how the post concludes that, "...the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun..."
Right, so each and every place we travel, we need a "good person with a gun" there to protect us. At church, grocery stores, movie theaters, in our bedrooms while we're sleeping, voting booths, a skating rink, a graveyard, an airport, a doughnut shop, and beyond - we need a "good person with a gun on hand to protect us!" No, that's not going to cost taxpayers a thing and won't increase the chance of this country turning into a police-state at all...
The worst part about this post is the fact the hero with a gun in this story was an off-duty cop. It's her job to be trained in shooting a firearm and protecting people. It's not like some random person named Chuck Limpy, who's partially blind, completely deaf, has never shot a firearm, and just decided to take his gun to a movie which he wouldn't be able to see very well nor hear at all, shot the perpetrator of this crime. No, an off-duty cop did. So, due to this chance occurrence of a trained cop with a gun playing the role of hero while off-duty, this means that more people (trained or untrained - that is of no relevance apparently, so long as they're "good") should bring a gun with them wherever they go.
It's just like in the story I'm about to make up, where a woman goes into labor at a restaurant and an off-duty doctor is there to deliver the baby. From this point on, I'd highly recommend that whenever people go out, be sure to bring some latex gloves, a couple nurses, and children will be much safer as a result. Another possible result of this is that there will likely be a new nationwide phenomenon of people busting out random porno shoots, which will be called, "Two Nurses and a Doctor with Latex."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting_n_2315139.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp
Comments
Post a Comment