What's even worse is that passing legislation targeting the mentally ill won't work either. Here's why, mental illness isn't an "on / off" type situation. If you make it so that anyone who is on any prescription med or self admits for mental health treatment gets "blackballed" - or - otherwise becomes a "second class" citizen that is stripped of their rights, then what you are creating is an atmosphere that discourages people to seek out treatment voluntarily. Then what will happen is that only the the craziest of the crazies will be stopped by the new "crazies can't get guns" law, the rest will slide under the radar, because they'll purposefully avoid treatment. I think laws like these targeting the mentally ill could potentially increase the incidence of these disturbing events.
This MURDERER was (at first glance) a successful reporter that snapped. My point is that he was someone with a career. Video news footage shows him speaking and reporting on topics and acting "normal". So he wasn't crazy. He was disturbed certainly, and very, very angry. But he wasn't crazy.
I know the victim's families must be grieving. What I'm about to say won't make them feel better, nor is it intended to. The fact remains however: thousands of people die senselessly each year, for no particularly good reason. Just recently I saw a news article that three people died from eating contaminated ice cream. YES, FROM EATING CONTAMINATED ICE CREAM. They're dead, does it matter how they died? Maybe in the human context it does, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that they're dead. What's worse? Your family member dying a violent death at the hands of another human being, or dying senselessly from ice cream? Both are extremely distressing in different ways (think about it). Here are some other examples of how senselessly some have passed: An E. coli outbreak swept over the U.S. twice in 2006. The first outbreak began in September when the FDA linked the hospitalizations to uncooked spinach in 26 states. Three people died, 31 suffered kidney failure. That's right, they died from eating spinach. Finally, according to NHTSB statistics, 30K people die in car accidents every year. I do not know if there are statistics on what percentage died through no fault of their own, but the fact is, some percentage of those were completely INNOCENT in terms of causality, AKA: innocent victims. The stark realization is let's face it, people die.
So what makes the gun special in the eyes of these anti-gun zealots? Is it the physical violence of it? Is it the visceral reaction of it? Is it their imagination of what it must be like to be shot? Maybe it's the loudness of it? Is it that they feel the weapon is much too powerful or effective at killing? Or is it that they just do not feel safe unless only government is in control of firearms or weapons period? One thing is for sure, they do not trust their fellow man (and I think it's a reflection of their own psyche). They do not think that people should be able to have guns at all. Maybe I'm restating the obvious here, but the underlying sentiment (besides the fact that they just do not "feel safe" [generally speaking]) is that they feel that the average person cannot be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of a weapon. I don't think anti-gunners are a particularly well thought out or rational crowd. One does get the sentiment that being anti-gun is more of a "feeling" than it is a logical position. This becomes especially apparent when one considers the irony then that the anti-gunners want to entrust that awesome power to government and government alone. Some here may get a good chuckle at the thought of a society where only your local DMV employee, or for that matter a Postal Worker [oh please for the love of god no], or some other govt employee ONLY being able to carry. The irony becomes sharply highlighted when one considers that the majority of police officers are, if nothing else, average. I digress (and maybe I'm even rounding down to the lowest IQ score here to try to make a point), but I don't see many doctors, lawyers, or other highly paid technical professionals flocking to the profession of policing. Yes policing is an important job. Yes there are talented, ethical, and even very bright individuals in the profession of law enforcement. Mathematically speaking however, the vast majority of these institution's constituent's will be found to follow a normal distribution curve just like in the civilian population. To Wit: they are average individuals. They get some training and pass some qualifications, and somehow that makes them more trustworthy with weaponry on the whole than the citizenry at large? Again the anti-gun position is an irrational, fear based, emotional position.
Look I know I'm preaching to the choir here on NES, but the bottom line is, if you take away guns, then people will use knives, or bats (they've been doing so since the first caveman picked up a stick). If subsequently, even one murder is too many, after we've given up our guns, will we need to ban knives, and bats? How about bows and arrows? Why stop there let's ban metal itself, since it can be used to make sharp implements? At this last point many a liberal's mind will shout "but that just doesn't make sense, we need metal for other purposes!" Correct, we need metal for other purposes. Some people use it to make cars, some people use it to make guns
. See how that works? Same thing with guns, some people use them to defend the innocent, like the police, and the law abiding citizenry of this country who need to protect their families (since the police can't be everywhere at all times) and whom I might add, are responsible for a statistically insignificant percentage of all violent crime involving the use of firearms, while still inevitably others use them for evil.
The whole rationale of gun control is a dizzying slippery slope that will only end in another terrible (and yet seemingly contemporary and frighteningly familiar) historical outcome.
"The state shouldn't have a monopoly on violence; governments should live in fear of their citizenry." ~ Cody Wilson
This MURDERER was (at first glance) a successful reporter that snapped. My point is that he was someone with a career. Video news footage shows him speaking and reporting on topics and acting "normal". So he wasn't crazy. He was disturbed certainly, and very, very angry. But he wasn't crazy.
I know the victim's families must be grieving. What I'm about to say won't make them feel better, nor is it intended to. The fact remains however: thousands of people die senselessly each year, for no particularly good reason. Just recently I saw a news article that three people died from eating contaminated ice cream. YES, FROM EATING CONTAMINATED ICE CREAM. They're dead, does it matter how they died? Maybe in the human context it does, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that they're dead. What's worse? Your family member dying a violent death at the hands of another human being, or dying senselessly from ice cream? Both are extremely distressing in different ways (think about it). Here are some other examples of how senselessly some have passed: An E. coli outbreak swept over the U.S. twice in 2006. The first outbreak began in September when the FDA linked the hospitalizations to uncooked spinach in 26 states. Three people died, 31 suffered kidney failure. That's right, they died from eating spinach. Finally, according to NHTSB statistics, 30K people die in car accidents every year. I do not know if there are statistics on what percentage died through no fault of their own, but the fact is, some percentage of those were completely INNOCENT in terms of causality, AKA: innocent victims. The stark realization is let's face it, people die.
So what makes the gun special in the eyes of these anti-gun zealots? Is it the physical violence of it? Is it the visceral reaction of it? Is it their imagination of what it must be like to be shot? Maybe it's the loudness of it? Is it that they feel the weapon is much too powerful or effective at killing? Or is it that they just do not feel safe unless only government is in control of firearms or weapons period? One thing is for sure, they do not trust their fellow man (and I think it's a reflection of their own psyche). They do not think that people should be able to have guns at all. Maybe I'm restating the obvious here, but the underlying sentiment (besides the fact that they just do not "feel safe" [generally speaking]) is that they feel that the average person cannot be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of a weapon. I don't think anti-gunners are a particularly well thought out or rational crowd. One does get the sentiment that being anti-gun is more of a "feeling" than it is a logical position. This becomes especially apparent when one considers the irony then that the anti-gunners want to entrust that awesome power to government and government alone. Some here may get a good chuckle at the thought of a society where only your local DMV employee, or for that matter a Postal Worker [oh please for the love of god no], or some other govt employee ONLY being able to carry. The irony becomes sharply highlighted when one considers that the majority of police officers are, if nothing else, average. I digress (and maybe I'm even rounding down to the lowest IQ score here to try to make a point), but I don't see many doctors, lawyers, or other highly paid technical professionals flocking to the profession of policing. Yes policing is an important job. Yes there are talented, ethical, and even very bright individuals in the profession of law enforcement. Mathematically speaking however, the vast majority of these institution's constituent's will be found to follow a normal distribution curve just like in the civilian population. To Wit: they are average individuals. They get some training and pass some qualifications, and somehow that makes them more trustworthy with weaponry on the whole than the citizenry at large? Again the anti-gun position is an irrational, fear based, emotional position.
Look I know I'm preaching to the choir here on NES, but the bottom line is, if you take away guns, then people will use knives, or bats (they've been doing so since the first caveman picked up a stick). If subsequently, even one murder is too many, after we've given up our guns, will we need to ban knives, and bats? How about bows and arrows? Why stop there let's ban metal itself, since it can be used to make sharp implements? At this last point many a liberal's mind will shout "but that just doesn't make sense, we need metal for other purposes!" Correct, we need metal for other purposes. Some people use it to make cars, some people use it to make guns
. See how that works? Same thing with guns, some people use them to defend the innocent, like the police, and the law abiding citizenry of this country who need to protect their families (since the police can't be everywhere at all times) and whom I might add, are responsible for a statistically insignificant percentage of all violent crime involving the use of firearms, while still inevitably others use them for evil.The whole rationale of gun control is a dizzying slippery slope that will only end in another terrible (and yet seemingly contemporary and frighteningly familiar) historical outcome.
"The state shouldn't have a monopoly on violence; governments should live in fear of their citizenry." ~ Cody Wilson
Last edited:
