The Shotgun Blog
Monday, January 17, 2011
Talking About Guns
NRO dissects some of the leftist spin on the Tucson shootings:
1. Don’t assume criminals follow laws.
In a way, this goes right to the heart of the gun-control debate. It is a conservative talking point that only the law-abiding will follow — and thus be disarmed by — gun laws.
I’m not asking you to swallow this reasoning whole. I’m just asking that you think twice before contradicting it — especially if you’re Eugene Robinson, who recently wrote about how the Tucson shooting shows that “we must decide that allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon, no questions asked, is just crazy.” (Or, more frighteningly, Rep. Peter King [R., N.Y.], who says he’s going to introduce a law that would simply make it illegal to bring a gun near a public official.)
Jared Loughner left his house that day intending to assassinate Representative Giffords. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a more restrictive concealed-carry regime would have changed that. If he was willing to violate laws against murder, he was willing to violate laws against concealed carry. Suggesting otherwise just shows that you haven’t bothered to think things through.
No, they certainly haven't. Gun laws aren't the product of careful thought, they are the product of ignorance and emotionalism. Members of the professional urban and suburban middle class, most of whom have never seen a real gun, are scared senseless of what they don't understand. Being statist in their politics, their natural response is to ban that something that's loud and dangerous. With the notable exception of Michael Moore.
Posted by Richard Anderson on January 17, 2011 | Permalink
Any "progressive" gun legislation introduced now is simply crisis-de-jour opportunism. I can't imagine anything passing now, even token nonsense such as large magazine bans. Polls don't support it and for the Dems proposing it, strategically, it's nothing more than a distraction from the important Republican work of stalling Obama-care and slashing spending. They might just as well ban the mentally ill from being closer than 1000 ft from Politicians. At least that would take Michael Moore out of his VIP box that he has shared with Jimmy Carter at the next DNC event.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2011-01-17 9:52:24 AM
Had there actually been several people present carrying a concealed weapon, the nutter would only have succeeded in getting off one shot at the most before someone took him down. Of course truth and facts have never been of interest to any of the various control zealots.
Posted by: Alain | 2011-01-17 11:42:26 AM
Just wanted to add that with the United States being the only remaining country where its citizens have not been disarmed, it drives the progressives crazy. So far their constitution has protected them from all attempts to disarm them, but do not expect the progressives to give up.
Posted by: Alain | 2011-01-17 12:03:58 PM
Gun ownership is for better or worse. You have to accept a few tragedies for the sake of freedom.
I look at gun ownership in a much different context than most other gun owners. I spend a fair amount of time in the wilderness vs any social setting. My familiarity with carrying a weapon, at ready, makes me much more comfortable with having others around me armed. When I encounter armed citizens in some US locations, I'm not intimidated the way many Canadians are. I actually feel a sense of security, so long as those citizens appear law abiding.
If you believe, as I do, that the majority of people are good, then everyone should be armed. That would result in armed criminals being at a distinct disadvantage. Statistics tend to back me up on this. The town of Northfield Minnesota is a good example. When the James Gang tried to rob a bank in Northfield, it was armed citizens who put a permanent end to their reign of terror, and ended the criminal careers of the Younger brothers. In fact, it turned Cole Younger into a nice old man. Something the Law never accomplished.
Posted by: dp | 2011-01-17 12:29:55 PM
'important Republican work such as stalling Obama care and slashing spending.'
Yeah, you'd hate for those @ 48 Million Americans to get any form of health care. Especially, mental health care, that may have helped prevent the Tuscon tragedy.
And the USA Pentagon, they can always use more $$ since they've proven themselves to be such a force for ' good' in the world.
Jimmy Carter served his country honourably in WW2 in the US Navy.
Could you please provide the military service records of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
You know, those tough talking Chicken Hawks. Tough Talking but never 'walking', kinda like yourself, soo unlike Jimmy Carter.
Could you also provide any documentation that qualifies yourself as being able to determine the mental state of Michael Moore?
Or are you just another Chicken Hawk 'talker' that talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk?
Sure does seem like it.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2011-01-17 1:45:10 PM
Jeff- Carter did not serve in WW2. His service was all post war. Not that it really matters, service is service, but you're making a big deal of it.
Posted by: dp | 2011-01-17 1:52:55 PM
PS- Reagan was too old for combat, but did contribute to the war effort. Bush and Cheney could probably be held up as "chicken hawks", but then, they aren't really conservative, are they?
Posted by: dp | 2011-01-17 1:55:43 PM
Canada spent billions on licensing and registering firearms but nothing on mental health care. Maybe 30 percent inmates have fetal alcohol syndrome, i think that money could of been spent in better ways.
Posted by: don b | 2011-01-17 4:06:44 PM
WTF does military service have to do with what I wrote about? Those 48 million you are concerned about consist of 40% well off or young healthy people who would rather self-insure, 10 to 15% of the Mexican population illegally residing in the US, and the rest qualifying for medicaid whether they realize it or not, all of whom have better access to health care procedures than Canadians on waiting lists.
I would bring most troops home, so you can stuff your military industrial complex BS where it belongs.
Michael Moore? OK, perhaps not mentally ill, just a lying, sleaze ball, multimillionaire, socialist, fat prick. One doesn't need credentials other than sentience for that diagnosis.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2011-01-17 6:29:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.