Search This Blog

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Thoughts from a former self of mine...on Guns.

Pleasing the Pacifists, Contenting the Killers

     Our society is plagued by malcontent murderers. A husband shoots his wife and children over a simple household issue that could have resolved itself with marriage counseling. Two teenage boys rob an unloved old neighbor woman of a few bucks for fun and gruesomely murder her when she does not comply with their wishes. A man and a teenager drive through the DC area and shoot people down in the parking lot for literally no reason at all. Some politicians say these events could have been prevented with a little counseling and some stiff gun control, and that the Second Amendment does nothing to stop these killings, but rather tacitly sustains them. Let us see—perhaps fairytale happily-ever-afters and Greek Deus ex machinas do occur in real life America, and that banning guns will create one. Or perhaps they do not.
     Affluent politicians such as John Kerry hold that because people kill with guns, without them crime rates will be dramatically reduced. We must assume, then, following our Senators’ infallible logic, that without guns people cannot effectively end each other’s lives. An angry murderer may tell you otherwise, however. I have been trained to kill an attacking rapist with female accessories such as a bra and sunglasses in a relatively short amount of time. I do not need a gun—neither does a powerful teenage male murderer with the potent combination of rage and adrenaline flowing through his veins. The two teenage boys in the introduction killed the woman by throwing her over a bridge. They did not use a shotgun or a Colt .22 or even a stolen AK-47: a piece of cement several meters below them worked just fine. In order to truly protect society, then, we must rid the world of bras, sunglasses, and bridges as well as guns. Large kitchen knives have already been outlawed in Australia following this basic logic. Stopping at guns does not pull the crime rate down—all dangerous weapons must be completely removed from society, even if it means sending Victoria’s Secret and Panama Jack out of business.
         Of course, we can completely remove something from society, correct? Everyone will obey the government and turn over their possessions without a fuss, right? In a society that bans guns, we know that all law-abiding citizens will obediently turn their guns over to the government. What about the murderers, however? Go ahead. Order a drug lord or Mafia henchman to hand over his Uzzi. I suggest that you start running as soon as you have finished making your demands—or that you at least have a loaded M-16 in your hands. Outlaw firearms, and only the government and the criminals will have them. Who do you trust more to protect you—yourself, Charles Manson, or Senator Ted Kennedy?
A gun-ban, then, would only affect innocent citizens, leaving killers free to enter any home without any fear of being shot through the head by a woman who does not want to be raped and murdered. No matter, the police will save the unarmed, helpless citizen, correct? Actually, no. The cities in our country with the highest crime rates (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco) also have the tightest gun control laws. Police are not supermen, faster than a speeding bullet. They can only rescue you as quickly as the distance they must cover. The introduction mentioned a woman and her children shot by their father. That unarmed woman called the police the instant her husband came to the door. The police did not get there until half-an-hour later. By then, it was too late, despite her son’s valiant efforts to fight off his gun-wielding father with a baseball bat. It takes thirty seconds, not thirty minutes, to pull a trigger thirty times.
            Our heaven sent defenders will protect us. We do not need guns. These are words similar to those of President Idi Amin, who buried alive the people of other ethnic tribes and shot little boys outside cathedrals. He banned guns and effectively prevented his people from rising up against his tyrannical rule. Hitler did the same thing. One of his first acts in office tightened gun control laws. Without guns, the Jews could not escape arrest. Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch Jew-hider sent to the concentration camp at Ravensbruck, writes that only three young Nazis with guns could easily keep an entire train of women under control. How different it could have been if the Jews had had access to armaments.
               It has been said that the Second Amendment right to bear arms protects all the other rights. There are hundreds of news incidences of law-abiding citizens over the past few years, many of them women, protecting their rights to liberty and property using legal firearms. Most of the time, the criminals did not even sustain injuries, suddenly becoming complacent when the victim had the ability to defend herself. In one case, an 18-year-old armed male invaded his 80-yr-old neighbor’s home to rape her. She managed to get out from under him and grab the pistol she kept by her bed. She fired and wounded her attacker and the police apprehended him when he turned up in a hospital a few days later. Her gun saved her life. No matter, however, that guns in the hands of intelligent citizens have saved lives. No matter that without guns we cannot protect ourselves from armed tyrannical governments. No matter that outlawing guns practic댫涞┳캢禱獱皘?ួ껇䷍蕴睵⼧縝簚寿몐?ﳡ챖껭ῇ蜵垜䄃?ຢ㧞Ẓ鿜塿囥痧윲㼡効녫ﺥὺ揦肢㺄敏⋁n᤭䞯褴儷閁⢠✳⵾. After all, our wondrously loving, beneficial government will protect us!

All information presented here were gathered from news stories I had read. Unfortunately, I was too young to know proper citing. But you can look them up!

No comments:

Post a Comment