I'm not going to mention names, because
I think lauding a killer by plastering his face all over every inch
of every web site and talking about him only encourages other seekers
of fame to try the same stunt. But we all know who I'm talking about.
The latest disturbed young man who took lives.
Joe Wurzelbacher (AKA Joe the Plumber)
wrote, in an open letter to the parents of the victims of the this
disaster “As harsh as this sounds — your dead kids don’t trump
my Constitutional rights.”
What a jerk! This is the kind of stupid
comment that hardens gun grabbers and makes law abiding gun owners look like freaks.
Of course our founding documents declare we have a right to life (and
liberty and the pursuit of happiness). And of course the right to
life is the most fundamental right – and yes, it does trump your
right to bear arms, Joe, because if you're dead you don't get to bear
arms.
But the worst part of Joe's letter is
it plays into the hands of the gun grabbers, by saying that Joe's
right to bear arms necessitates the deaths of innocents. Why? Joe
isn't going to kill innocent people with his gun (at least I hope
not). So why link these two unrelated events? The gun grabbers want
to say “see – letting law abiding citizens own guns leads to
children murdered in the streets.” Joe says “yes it does, suck it
up.”
Instead of proactively whining that
people have to accept their child's murder for you to have your guns,
why not take a moment and be human. These people have lost their
children. That's the worst fear a parent can face. As a parent and a
human being, I am sorry for their loss. I wish there were a way to
prevent it from happening.
So, how can we prevent things like this
from happening? Does taking away someone else's right to bear arms
guarantee these children's right to life?
Surely not with the gun control laws in
place. If anything, this incident is the poster child for why gun
control doesn't work. As was noted in Cold
Dead Hands:
These killings
occurred, 1. After a background check, 2. In a state with a 10 round
magazine limit, 3. In a state with an Assault Weapons Ban, 4. In a
state, and especially a community, which essentially does not issue
CCW licenses, and 5. In a place where it was illegal to carry a gun
in any fashion. It met every one of Obama's current talking points
for solutions to gun control. So in this situation it had every sort
of restrictive law in place that we've been told by gun control
advocates are "common sense" solutions that even gun owners
support! Of course, they didn't work.
What's the definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing and expecting different results. So, I think
this incident is a good argument as to why enacting more laws like
these is not a good way to prevent this sort of thing, and rather
than common sense, is insanity.
What might have happened differently?
Well, the therapists and/or police might have declared him unfit to
have access to guns. Would that have stopped the killing? Probably
not, as I believe he would just have stabbed more victims instead of
changing from a knife to a gun.
Honestly I can think of only two things
that might have changed the outcome. First, if his therapists had
committed him to an institution. Secondly, if he encountered an
individual who could stop him. An armed citizen.
If we're going to talk about gun
rights, let's talk about how guns are used to save lives, not
complain that deaths are “acceptable.” Because no death is
acceptable, and yet they happen, unless someone can stop the killer.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment