Skip to comments.Why most Americans don't go along with the calls for gun control
Posted on 12/15/2012 10:42:30 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
By Tim Dunkin
Yet another mass shooting has taken place, and before the smoke barely had time to clear, those on the Left were already leaping into action in their efforts to politicize this terrible tragedy for their own partisan ends. Predictably, a broad spectrum of social parasites have attached themselves to the shooting in Connecticut, leeching off the devastation to try to gain support for their agenda. Rahm Emanuel's advice to "never let a crisis go to waste" has become a watchword of late for the Left, and this has never been on display more nakedly than in the aftermath of the murder of 26 people, including 20 children, at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. In Seattle, the leftie mayor was quick to call for more gun control. Senator Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) joined the chorus, as did New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, who chided Obama for not taking "direct executive action" to ban guns and overturn the Constitution. Michael Moore, the corpulent chieftain of celluloid calumnity, opined that "the NRA hates freedom," for, presumably, standing up for our constitutional right to self-defense. Andrew Cuomo demanded that we "crack down" on guns. Rupert Murdoch called for a ban on "automatic weapons," even though "automatic weapons" weren't used in this shooting, and are, in fact, already generally illegal for civilian ownership.
Equally as predictable will be the gasps of outrage coming from the Left when conservatives and liberty lovers, as well as millions of other Americans who otherwise don't generally fall into those categories, refuse to capitulate on the issue of gun rights as a kneejerk reaction to the shooting. How dare we refrain from going along with implementing "common sense, reasonable" gun control! Why, we're just aiding and abetting the next school shooter by our refusal to implement more laws, more regulations, more bans! After all, that's what happens pretty much every time something like this happens: the Left goes into hysterics, calling for more gun control, more restrictions; meanwhile the Right weathers the storm, cooler heads prevail, and the 2nd amendment remains intact. It surely must be frustrating for the left-wingers — each time, a perfect opportunity fallen by the wayside. Don't we stupid yokels get it?
As an aside, have you ever noticed that these types of mass shootings always seem to happen whenever the Left starts to crank up another drive for gun control? The Colorado theater shooting earlier this year, right after the Democrats started to push for the UN ban on small arms? The Connecticut shooting, right after prominent Democrats, including Colorado governor Hickenlooper, had already been noising around that gun control needs to be back on the agenda? Entirely coincidental, I'm sure. It would be loopy to think otherwise. Absolutely nuts. Crazy. Cu-ray-zee!
Anywise, I think it's a fair discussion to have, this question of why we don't jump onto the gun control bandwagon whenever a tragedy such as this most recent school shooting occurs. After all, in the minds of many, it makes perfect sense — the shooter used guns to kill innocent people, so why don't we want to get rid of the guns? What kind of insanity would keep us from finally coming to our senses, after yet another disaster of this type?
I think there are four general reasons why conservatives, liberty lovers, and these millions of other Americans I spoke of above don't do so.
First, there's the simple fact that for many folks — and not just those of us on the ideological Right — trying to use a catastrophe such as Newtown for your own political ends seems just a little...what's the word?...creepy. There's something ghoulish about using the blood of dead children to try to advance your agenda, no matter how genuine may be your belief in the necessity of gun control. Doing so makes you look like some sort of sick, twisted sociopath who can't figure out that the middle of picking up the pieces from a tragedy of this sort is not the time to be politicizing. Instantly, the act of this politicization turns off many from hearing what the Left has to say.
Second, many Americans find the sort of behavior being shown by the Left to be distasteful because they know, deep down, that the sort of knee-jerk, emotionalistic scaremongering being done by the Left is not how this country was intended to operate by those who founded it. Our nation was meant to be a representative republic, one where the citizenry had a say in the crafting of our laws through their elected representatives. This citizen participation presupposes an informed, educated, rational citizenry — exactly the opposite of the kind that the Democrats and leftists are appealing to with the fear-rhetoric and histrionics. While many of our people do, indeed, fall for that sort of appeal, many, many more Americans can't help but feel somewhat demeaned that the Left tries to sway to them with arguments that are essentially on the maturity level of a five year old.
For all the hype and thunder, the simple fact of the matter is that, school shootings or no, fact and reason are not on the side of those calling for more gun control, and this has been the case each time a shooting like this occurs. Most of us know that when a crazy psycho shoots up a school, they violate any number of already-existing gun control laws to do so. Kliebold and Harris, who committed the Columbine massacre, violated 19 gun control laws in the process of obtaining and using their weapons. Connecticut laws prohibiting those under 21 from possessing firearms did not stop Adam Lanza from shooting up that school, nor did the laws against carrying guns onto school properties. Here's the simple fact: lawbreakers break laws — make all the laws you want, you're only hindering the law-abiding from defending themselves and others, you're not slowing down the psychos in the least. Passing laws that restrict the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country does nothing to prevent criminals from committing their deeds. Gun control laws do not work, and in fact, make things even worse because they disarm people, making them prime targets for violence by the lawless. Millions of Americans are smart enough to see through the emotionalism to realize that as much as liberal Democrats may scream for gun control, these proposed laws would be absolutely worthless.
Germany has tough gun control laws, yet this didn't stop a gunman from killing 15 at a school near Stuttgart in 2009, nor did they prevent another gunman from killing 16 in Erfurt in 2002. The United Kingdom has very strict gun laws, yet this didn't prevent a psycho from killing 16 at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. Norway restricts guns severely, yet Anders Behring Breivik still managed to kill 69 children at a youth camp. Facts make it very clear — gun laws and "gun-free zones" don't deter criminals, they encourage them. Passing stricter gun control laws simply means more people are prepared to be victims of violent criminals who don't bother to obey these laws. In essence, one failed law simply becomes the predicate for more failed laws. I wonder if anyone on the Left ever stops to ponder the question of why Switzerland and Israel never seem to have these mass school shootings. Or, for that matter, why these types of shooting almost always take place in blue states that have already disarmed their citizens fairly thoroughly. Perhaps the psychos are smart enough to remember that when a shooter tried to terrorize a school in Pearl, Mississippi, the assistance principal got his pistol out of his pickup truck and subdued the shooter before he could get beyond victim number two. Yeah. Blue states are definitely safer for that sort of thing.
Third, most Americans can understand at a foundational level that punishing millions of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a handful of psychopathic shooters is inherently unfair. Because one kid shoots up a school — breaking existing gun control laws in the process — we have to clamp down on everybody else, making their exercise of their right to keep and bear arms more onerous, or even non-existent? All this, so that the next kid that goes crazy can break the news laws, too? No — that seems fundamentally unjust on so many levels. It's like telling people that own swimming pools that they will now have to install all kinds of prohibitively expensive safety equipment, or even fill in their pools and be done with them completely, all because some irresponsible parents let their kid dive into the 3" end of a motel pool, breaking his neck and killing him. It's like making all car owners add hugely expensive bumper radar systems that shut the car off it they get near a person, all because a few pedestrians are struck and killed each year. Instituting more and more extensive gun control is a misguided — in the literal sense of the word — response that relies on treating all firearms users as if they were they same: the law-abiding hunter, sport-shoooter, or gun owner who carries to protect himself and his loved ones is no morally different from the crazed psycho who guns down defenseless human beings for sport. That is essentially the argument that the Democrats and others on the Left are making, even if they would not admit to it if confronted directly. It's no wonder that the 130 million or more law-abiding gun owners in this country, many of whom have never shot anything more than a paper target, recoil at the arrogant, broad-brush strokes of the insipid fools calling for more gun control.
Fourth, there is the simple fact alluded to above — gun owners make up a class of Americans numbering over 130 million people, from all walks of life, all different socioeconomic classes, all different races and ethnicities. As a result, gun owners are not easily pigeon-holed for demonization by the Left. It is much more difficult for the Left to successfully con the majority of Americans into hating and persecuting a group that makes up over a third of our population, and who are the family and friends of millions more. In contrast, it is easy for the Left to demonize the rich, since there aren't that many of them comparatively. Most of us are not rich, nor do most of us personally know many rich people that we would have close, personal bonds with. As a result, it's easy for the Left to cast "the rich" as "the other" and incite those lizard-brain feelings of tribal jealousy and hatred in many Americans. This doesn't work with gun owners, and many Americans outside of the Northeast and the Left Coast do not sympathize with efforts to denigrate and persecute their friends and neighbors.
As such, there are many valid reasons why we do not jump to the call of more gun control laws when our pretended social betters issue the clarion. We're smart enough to realize that the problem is not with guns — it is with defective people who slipped through the cracks of the mental health or criminal justice systems in this country. Indeed, we realize — as our Founders also did — that firearms widely dispersed into the hands of the law-abiding citizens of this country are the surest safeguard of both liberty and safety. Could a school shooting such as that in Newtown, Connecticut have been prevented or minimized had the teachers been armed? We'll never know for as long as we keep making our schools into target-rich environments full of defenseless victims of criminals who ignore all the laws. Nevertheless, the American people must resist the Left's emotionalistic bleatings, and stand firm in defense of our 2nd amendment rights.
I apologise in advance for any spelling and grammatical errors. This was finished about 2:30 AM.
Most Americans know that leftists never hesitate to use the power of the State to kill or imprison those who disagree with them. American leftists are no different than leftists in other nations.
Rahm has roughly 7 days a week to use the violins of the previous day in Chicago's South Side to push for gun control....
The first Congressman or Senator from my state that appeases and says that “meaningful gun-control” dialogue has to take place in the wake of this had better be thankful of the last vote I cast for them; because it will be the very last.
Guns don't kill people. Criminals, the insane, and totalitarian governments do. (But I repeat myself.)
I’m not sure it would work but what if all teachers had access to a stun gun or mace? If it was within easy reach for THEM ONLY, couldn’t it be easily distributed to all classrooms.
I’m just thinking of those brave teachers who ran out into the hall completely unarmed to fend off the shooter. I don’t disagree with arming the teachers but it can’t be all of them and they all need some way to protect their students.
I think a combination of safeguards is the fastest way to start protecting these kids. In addition to the stun gun or mace and yes, armed teachers or guards, I’d also include panic buttons in the office so someone doesn’t have to bother dialing 911 or explaining there’s a shooter. If they hit that button, message received.
One last thought, train the teachers to use what they have. Could one of them have broken the glass on a fire extinguisher and used it on the shooter?
I’m no safety expert for sure and these may be dumb suggestions but I think we need to start the discussion.
We have a new dynamic today. Americans have been on a gun buying binge the last several years the likes we’ve never seen before (thanks to Obama). And guess waht? There has been no corresponding spike in crime and we all know it.
The years of gun control evidence is now clear; Gun control is like trying to solve drunken driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.
Collectively, we’re just not buying this shit anymore.
How about MENTAL HEALTH control? These tragedies started after the mental health hospitals closed and put the mentally sick loose on the public - and treatment of choice is Prozac, etc, - these shooters have almost 100% been on Prozac and related drugs, which have a PROVEN side effect of suicide and violence.!
Yet none of these sleazy politicians - or the media - mention we need more control and treatment over the mentally ill - and who triggered turning the mentally ill loose on the public? Pres. Jimmy Carter. - which is another reason it's never mentioned. If these mental cases can't get a gun, they use other means - like pipe bombs... It's not the guns. I remember when the mental hospitals were closed - and mentally sick couldn't be committed without THEIR permission! That's like saying the drunk driver can't be arrested without their permission.
post this link everywhere and anywhere you can - There are not many people today who know or remember why the mentally ill not only don't get the treatment THEY need, but who explode with such violence on the Innocent.
And copy/paste this info and email to every media outlet - including FOX and separate FOX commentators, like Briet, O'R and Hannity, and Rush. Leave them with no excuse not to address the real issue here.
First, there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws actively on the books today and none of them prevented this tragedy. Second, millions upon million of people in America own guns and 99.9999% of them have never and will never do anything like this.
So, lets lose the hysteria and analyze the facts - a PERSON did this, NOT a hunk of steel. In Portland, a PERSON killed two people in the mall, NOT a hunk of steel! In Denver, a PERSON shot up the theater, NOT a hunk of steel!!
NONE of these facts will matter to the gun-grabbing nanny-staters, because they focus solely on the gun and nothing else. So, what happens if ALL guns are outlawed and forcibly collected by the feds? Someone bent on committing mass murder may turn to knives, hatchets, chainsaws or machetes. So, we outlaw those. The next person to commit a heinous crime may use a bat, poison, poison gas or a semi-tractor. And the one after that may use a car, a pen or pencil, a rock, his hands . . . . . . so when do we blame the PERSON and NOT the inanimate weapon!???
The fact remains that until the left understands that murdering humans by ANY means including their favorite method, abortion, human life will be valueless and more copycats will come out to exercise their demented mass murder of innocent people.
All of that said, it occurs to me that the gun-grabbers are from the leftist school of complete control. What that means is that if 1 person commits a gun crime then, under the leftist theory of the “collective” and “groupthink”, they believe that ALL gun owners will commit mass murder unless they eliminate guns (good luck with that!). So, the calls for more gun control by the left after these incidents is twofold - eliminate the “balance of power” the Founding Fathers so carefully wove into the Constitution and gain total control over the people.
Another part that affects all of this is the fact that laws, whether gun laws, robbery laws, or whatever, are written solely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are called “outlaws” and criminals because they DON’T adhere to the laws created to control or stop their illegal activities.
So, should the left create additional gun control laws, will it prevent the next gun-related crime? Of course not. Laws only affect those of us who obey them. Those who disregard the law won’t be stopped from committing whatever crime they want to commit.
As a final note, Adam Alonza did not own the guns he used to murder all of the people at Sandy Hook Elementary. They were his mother’s guns and they were all legally purchased and registered. Which begs the question, what will any NEW gun control laws accomplish?
Look to control weapons, (and automobiles, and aircraft) in the hands of people taking these psychiatric medications until a doctor certifies the danger is over.
The leftists murder 50 MILLION ABORTED BABIES. how about protecting the unborn?
The mentally sick man broke strict gun laws. Nothing can stop laws from being broken.
Why is Fedgov giving guns to Al Queda in Syria and Libya, and to the drug cartels in Mexico, and seeking to restrict the R2KBA in the US constitution?
The focus should be on the mentally ill individuals who commit these atrocities. How do we keep them safely away from harming others?
That makes too much sense; next thing we know, you'll be suggesting fire alarms and fire extinguishers???
In my opinion it all goes back to PC and the insistence on feelings being more important than anything.
We are now at the point where otherwise sane, logical people FEAR INANIMATE OBJECTS not the people who use them. The people- according to the cowardly PC mentality - must be understood and validated in some way. Yet there must be some blame for murder and tragedy- so it must be the INANIMATE OBJECT.
Following this logic the Muslim terrorists of 9-11 didn’t kill anyone THE PLANE did. How far is this society going to go to avoid blaming people and the evil they do instead of the objects they use to do it?
If no object-such as a gun- is used in a murder, is there no crime? Is the water to blame when people drown their children? Cars to blame in hit and runs and accidents? People are too damned afraid to confront the idea of human evil and responsibility and so they blame THINGS.
If anyone approaches me with the ‘ban evil guns’ argument I tell them ‘ban evil hands’. Murder begins in the mind, it ENDS in the hands. No hands-no murder.
I’ve actually heard people say that legal guns are bad because if people didn’t own them, criminals couldn’t steal them! By that reasoning you shouldn’t own a car-which could be used in a drive-by or accident,or kitchen knives, which could be a murder weapon, or even golf clubs and bricks because they could be used to beat someone to death. So HAVING anything is the problem if it can be used to hurt someone else-and we all know that anything can do that-even sharp pens and household chemicals!
The guns this evil, insane man used to kill those babies HAD not and COULD not kill anyone while they were in his mothers house. HE killed using them. I can sleep with a loaded howitzer pointed at my head every night- and the gun will never kill me. INANIMATE objects cannot be evil.
They can be used to protect-and THAT is the question to ask- why does anyone want the US populace disarmed?
When only the government has guns-we will all be victims.
Or how about we address the stem cause? Reinsate involuntary committment of the mentally ill - stop the use of Prozac and such drugs - that were NEVER tested on the young and that have proven side effects of suicide and violence - and that nearly 100%A of these mass shooters were on? (Many of whom the families have tried, in vain, to get help for.)
these two actions - no involuntary committent of the mentally ill (Like saying you can’t arrest a drunk driver without their permission) and the wide use of dangerous drugs with a proven track record of death and destruction?
One could wonder; “Have these two action been a deliberate plan to foist the acceptance of gun-control on a clueless public?”
How many people remember, or are old enough to, who’s responsible for turning the mentally ill loose on the public, who spurred the closing of the mental hospitals and invountary committment, turning them out on the street without proper treatment with a ‘these people have thier rights too’ rationale?
Spead it wide and clear. Maybe SOME news person or politician will be honest enough to say it outloud.
Of all the reasons for Jimmy C.’s legacy of shame, this is the worst.
Sane people lock up their cars, their homes, their belongings to keep them safe, AND protect themselves and their assets with firearms...why can’t we do the same with CHILDREN!!!!???? (Paraphrasing Mark Levin).
If liberals had fought at the Alamo (work with me here) they would have rushed to the west wall if Santa Anna was attacking the east wall, scrambling over it I suppose.
Just the usual hysterical histrionics from the moonbats directed at the 2nd Amendment, which they hate with a red-hot: “We’ll scratch your eyes out!” passion. That’s why.
If we could only get them as concerned about the killings of unborn children—which are going on every day—abortion would be called what it is—murder, instead of a “choice”.
The answer to this violance on school grounds is simple - put an armed guard in each school and shoot the SOB who gets in with a gun.
Unfortunately healthcare and pharma industry is larger then gun industry. Lobby power is bigger. MSM including Fox will not take on this issue. It is very simple. Hello Fox (or MSM) try to start a campaign holding pharma drugs responsible for unstable behavior and we will pull our advertising off your channel and see what happens to your revenue stream! Money talks and BS walks. Fox CEO puts phone down and tells Hannity to shut up. That is how corporate fascism works.
What they are actually meant to accomplish. They will keep those like his law-abiding mother from getting, owning, and carrying guns... which means it will keep all of us from getting, owning, and carrying guns.
P.S. It is only criminals and tyrants who flourish in the gun-free zones...
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward. ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
>>How about MENTAL HEALTH control? These tragedies started after the mental health hospitals closed and put the mentally sick loose on the public - and treatment of choice is Prozac, etc, - these shooters have almost 100% been on Prozac and related drugs, which have a PROVEN side effect of suicide and violence.!
Here is a link for you:
SSRI Stories / Antidepressant Nightmares - “We Speak for the Dead to Protect the Living”
You’ll note there is a School Shootings / Incidents category.
Oh, and needless to say, I’ll be very interested to see what we hear about this guy being under any psych care/meds.
It is worth noting that the Portland mall shooter was confronted with an armed citizen, ran off, and offed himself.
That one could have been much worse.
You aren’t hearing much about that.
Yeah, because that worked soooo well before, and was NEVER abused by those in the system, nor misapplied by those who decided who was committed (and for how long).
There are reasons it was ended.
All 4 reasons are spot on.
Thank for the link.
I, over a decade ago, used to research this and did stories on it - got nowhere -
really getting to the point where I think maybe a super charged solar flare that would knock out all electric/electronics might not be so bad.
Put us all back on a level playing field. Strat from scratch.
It is distasteful to talk about silver linings in the wake of such a tragedy. However, if the Dems overplay their hand on this, it could be THE thing that prevents them from gaining total control of Congress in ‘14. (up till now I had concluded that was a done deal)
If it doesn’t already, I’ll bet polling will show overwhelming majority support for banning ‘assault weapons’ like the one used in this shooting.
I don’t care about public opinion on this and I oppose bringing back the ‘assault weapons’ ban. I hope the House defeats any attempt to bring it back. But I think it will be hard. The pro-Democrat demographic shifts taking place are bad not only for Republicans but also for the Second Amendment. Most single women, as well as most Hispanics and most Asians are much less supportive of the Second Amendment, and are probably very supportive of banning ‘assault weapons.’
We won’t be able to rely on the Sup Court either. Heller and MacDonald were 5-4 decisions, and will most likely be overturned. And anyway, they didn’t address ‘assault weapons.’ I think it’s a safe bet that either John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy (or both) would okay a ban on ‘assault weapons.’
We already have mandatory waiting periods, background checks and registration. While we can still purchase guns and ammunition for the time being, we are in severe danger of becoming Hungary in 1956. You see, as an iron curtain nation, Hungary was already under the control of the USSR. Their guns were fully registered in order to be legal.
But, post-war Hungary chafed under the rule of the Soviets and kept trying to circumvent their rules. So, one week in 1957, all of the guns were confiscated by government troops going house-to-house using gun registration information. The following week, Soviet tanks rolled across the border as the USSR clamped down on their iron curtain satellite.
These pieces are already in place here. All we lack are the government troops (remember Obama wanting to certify the military to conduct arrests of American citizens on American soil?) knocking at your door and confiscating your guns. With zero and his nanny-state sycophants demanding tighter gun control laws, there isn't much of the Second Amendment left for them to circumvent.
We have already reached the America Ayn Rand described at the end of Atlas Shrugged. There's no Galt's Gulch, but everything else is here. It isn't much of a stretch to envision zero deciding to strike down the Second Amendment with an EO. The Christmas recess is approaching and this plays perfectly into his hands. After all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . he won!
Well I don’t think that’s dumb at all! There can be other things one can do! I realize that not all people are easy with guns, and could use something else.
A very good article!
Pity no one will ever read it.