I doubt that there's many Americans who haven't thought about the tragedy in Orlando, for the past weeks. Who wouldn't? who couldn't possess compassion for such a senseless massacre of fellow human beings. There's such an ache in my heart and I've thought about it a lot. I've thought about why? thought about what should be done, is it possible that it could've been prevented. The thought that innocent people would be cowering in a bathroom and calling their mother or loved ones to say, I love you and I'm about to die, is just about the sickest horror I can think of. Just as it was on 911.
The bad guys will have a gun, if not a gun, a bomb. THEY will have their weapons of destruction. One good guy with a gun could've saved many lives in Orlando, perhaps nearly all. It's foolish to think that the solution is to take all the guns away. Should weapons that blast off hundreds of rounds in a short span be highly restricted? I'm pro gun and I'm not certain that there is a legitimate reason for owning such weapons. And yet, the same facts still apply---a good responsible person will have no ill intentions for the weapon and the bad guys will still find a way to get them.
Our founders, writers of the Constitution knew well about tyranny and intended that the citizens of this new democracy would be protected from government over reach but also would be able to protect their home and family. Think about a world where only governments had the stockpiles of weapons, no citizens of earth allowed to have guns. Does that make you feel safe? Do you really trust the governments and their military to have the power? Has the banning of guns prevented Paris or Europe from the terrorist attacks? No incident comes to my mind of a shooter entering a place where the people would be armed and performing their maniac deeds. Even if suicide is their intention, their goal is to murder as many innocents as possible before they go down.
I'm so sorry for those of you who believe that you will stop this terror by disarming the good folks. The only hope that our society has for stopping these unspeakable tragedies is that we must shoot first. If our guaranteed rights are taken from us, if good people have no protection, then we will maybe die on a dirty bathroom floor or in our workplace or in the restaurant, our church or on our doorstep. Worst of all, we may die at the hands of a government who has ALL the power.
Interesting thoughts - but remember there was an armed off-duty police officer at the club that night, and he exchanged shots with the killer. He did not stop him or decrease the death toll. So, that argument is a bit crass. And, arguing that without a semi-automatic weapon the killer would have simply found another method is a logically flawed argument that doesn't move the conversation forward. And, finally, arguing that unrestricted gun rights are a sound move against tyranny is a bit hysterical and paranoid.
ReplyDeleteA civilized and rational society could implement more effective gun ownership policies that could decrease the likelihood of gun violence as well as the extremity of it.
I respect your views and appreciate that you read mine. I stand by my opinion. To me, the idea that a person so determined to make their statement and convinced that killing people will accomplish that goal, would not find a way to reign down his terror is the flawed logic. The evil guys will absolutely find a weapon to use.
ReplyDeleteI and all the pro gun people that I know have never argued for totally unrestricted gun rights. That is putting words in our mouth. We argue for the constitutional rights we were guaranteed to own guns for the protection of our property and family and fellow citizens. Is there a need for effective gun ownership policies? Yes. Taking guns from the good people is not the way to stop the bad. I'm not hysterical or paranoid, I am a realist and I love this country. Governments, even the leadership of our precious country are human and capable of corruption and tyranny. Words, banning guns, naivity and denial will not change the facts.
The only reason the police officer wasn't able to stop the killer or decrease the death toll was because he wasn't able to take him down. But then, he wasn't allowed to stand at the door with a semi-automatic weapon. Mass murder isn't "crass", it's an abomination against civil and rational society.
I'm kinda in the middle. I can understand taking automatic belt-fed stuff away.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't like the severe insecurity of having no guns at all. I want to keep my rifle. If nothing else, I need it for the coyotes in my Sierra Nevada foothill home. They try to eat my cats.
And really, I don't trust our government that much, either. I don't want them to have all the guns. They can at least leave us rifles for home security. I figure rifles are better for your aim anyway, and if I'm shooting, I really want to hit what I'm targeting.
Extremes...to the left or right or straight up never seem to be the correct answer. Coyotes do have a taste for cats. Thanks for reading and your comments
ReplyDelete