Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem.
Yes, I understand that liberals have the right to disagree with me. I also understand they are as passionate about their opinions as I am about mine.
The massacre of anyone, men, women OR children is a catastrophe. It’s a horrible tragedy that no one should have to endure. And I agree something has to be done.
The disagreement comes in the path to take to fix this problem.
Liberals feel that enacting more laws and stricter gun control is the key to fixing violence. Let’s not specify it as “gun violence.” It’s violence, plain and simple, regardless of the tool used to commit the violence.
And I’m NOT avoiding the label of “gun” violence to bolster my stand against gun control. I don’t need to do that. But rather, I’m trying to face the fact that violence is the problem, not the tools used to perpetrate the violent act.
Disregard all the usual cliches both sides use. Forget about the normal tactics used to address this topic. Boil it down to one, simple fact.
Violent criminals prefer unarmed victims. Criminals LOVE gun control. If no other point of view ever gets agreed upon or made clear by either side of this debate, that one, simple fact of common sense should sum up the entire issue.
We have so many gun laws on the books now that enacting more laws isn’t going to make a difference. Criminals do not adhere to the laws. If they don’t follow the laws we have now, why would you think enacting more laws would suddenly make them more responsible criminals?
The war on drugs is a perfect example of how ineffective laws can be, and how futile it is to simply enact MORE laws as a solution, rather than focus on finding a solution for the root, core cause of violent crime.
We are losing the war on drugs. No, I don't want to give up and I don't want to just make all drugs legal, so before you liberals can make that analogy to gun laws, let me make my logical point. THEN you can get all emotional in your response and refuse to see the logic.
The war on drugs is costing us billions of dollars a year. And the drug lords of Mexico and South America operate with almost total freedom.
We have plenty of laws on the books to deter drug use, drug manufacturing and drug trafficking.
My point is, enacting MORE laws isn't going to help us start winning the war on drugs.
And what happened when we did enact a new law making certain chemicals in cold medicine illegal?
It did NOTHING to stem the tide of dealers cooking meth. All it did was make it harder for me, a law-abiding citizen, to get a few packages of cold medicine. As usual, the laws affected the good guys, and the bad guys went right on ignoring the new laws, just like they had been ignoring the old laws...because that's what they do. They're criminals.
So we have to figure out better ways to deter the criminal activity with the plentiful numbers of laws already in effect.
Prohibition is another perfect analogy. When we made booze illegal, crime soared, mobsters like Al Capone made millions, thousands of innocent people died, and booze was everywhere.
We finally decided it would be better to provide treatment for the individual person rather than make booze illegal across the board. Organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous opened treatment centers all across the country and it was a much more viable option for alcoholism than making all booze illegal. For the 12 years during Prohibition, all Hell literally broke loose and it was the common citizens who often paid the price.
The thing to look at and adopt as our “rule of thumb” for violent crime is, what is working best right now? Where is there the least amount of violence? What works best right now in deterring violent crime?
Unfortunately for the liberals, the places with the least amount of violent craim are in those communities and areas where law-abiding citizens are the most well-equipped and well-armed to defend themselves and protect their loved ones. Places where criminals are most concerned about their potential victims fighting or shooting back at them.
Liberals hate this concept because they have a deeply rooted hatred of guns, not the criminals using guns to commit violence. They make excuses for the people. Someone didn’t get hugged enough as a child or they were bullied in school or they were abused in some way. Whatever, it’s never the individual person who needs to take responsibility for their own actions. It’s always the fault of something or someone else. Society in general, perhaps. That's just a mainstay of liberal ideology. So, it only makes sense liberals would blame guns rather than the person committing the act of violence.
Nobody ever tries to rob a gun store. If guns are so dangerous on their own, how does anybody ever get out of a gun show alive? If guns were the perpetrators of the violence, then there would be no anti-gunners left. Something in these environments is curtailing violence. What is it? Armed law-abiding citizens.
Gun-free zones create criminal-friendly zones. That’s all there is to it. Washington D.C. and Chicago, IL have some of the strictest gun control in the nation. They also have more violent crime than most other cities.
Liberals use nothing but emotion and passion to argue their point on the gun-control issue. That’s why, when discussing the shooting at the movie theater in Colorado, you’ll hear a gun-rights supporter say something like, “If there had been a law-abiding citizen there with a concealed carry permit, he could possibly have taken out that shooter and saved lives.” The liberal response to that statement is one like, “Oh. Yeah. MORE bullets flying around in the dark would have been a good thing.”
A logical statement refuted by an emotional statement. Liberals are using a passionate hatred of guns and creating a visual fantasy akin to what you would see in a movie or on T.V. They can’t fathom the actual logic that a good guy with a gun may have been able to stop the bad guy with a gun.
For a liberal to admit that, they would have to admit that the person was responsible for his own actions, and they will never admit that.
Liberals think of themselves more as a citizen of the world or community than they do a single person with individual rights. They want everyone working together, for one goal, in harmony and peace. Utopia. And if someone recognizes that as communism and doesn’t want to be a member of said community with shared wealth and no incentive to excel, then liberals want laws enacted to make that unruly individual act the way the liberals think they should and join in the Utopian community.
They don’t realize that enacting laws to force people to act contrary to their own personal opinions, tastes and inclinations is oppression and serves to do nothing but create a smoldering resentment, which will eventually boil over into revolt and rage.
Not everyone cares about the environment. Not everyone cares about the abortion issue. Not everyone cares about immigration or health care. Conservatives recognize and accept that, We also recognize that, while someone may not care about the environment, they may care about animal rights. While they may not care about the abortion issue, they may care about immigration. We are accepting of the fact that people care about different things and no one is good or bad because they don’t care about an issue you happen to be passionate about.
But the Utopian image the liberal strives to create means everyone HAS to care about all the same issues that face the community at large. And, again, if someone doesn’t, enact a law forcing people to adhere to the behavior that THEY feel will benefit that community. Because to a liberal, enacting a law and forcing desired behavior is an acceptable alternative to winning over someone's heart and mind with logic and reason. To the liberal, the result is the same, regardless of the oppression.
Conservatives think it’s better to let people care about whatever it is they care about, and wish them well in their endeavors. Contrary to popular opinion, conservatives are usually more accepting of the differences in people and more tolerant of their particular proclivities than are the liberals.
And this is no more obvious than in the gun-rights debate. When faced with the logic of facts and statistics, a liberal will rely on personal insults, hypothetical rhetoric and emotional dramatization to deflect the opposing view and trivialize that opposing view. That never really serves any good purpose and accomplishes nothing positive.
After Sandy Hook, the liberal media trotted out a heart-broken parent of a murdered child who exclaimed my right to own a gun didn’t trump the right of his child to live. And I agree with that. If giving up my guns would save just one child, I would give them up without hesitation. No parent ever expects to bury a child, and the gut-wrenching pain is truly horrible.
But me giving up my guns will change NOTHING about the violence in our society. All it will do is make me another unarmed possible victim, waiting for an attack by a criminal with a weapon. The problem is not guns. The problem is criminals using weapons of all kinds to kill others. Sometimes, yes, they use guns. More often, criminals use hammers than the vilified assault rifle. Yet the liberal media sure does a GREAT job enforcing and supporting their anti-gun agenda by publicizing gun violence at every opportunity because it stirs up the emotions and passions of their liberal following. It serves their political and business agenda.
So, in conclusion, no one has ever been able to answer this one question. How is limiting my access to whatever guns I want to defend my family or take to the range to enjoy shooting sports going to make one bit of difference to the violence pervasive in our country?
Until we come up with a solution to the problem of people desiring to commit crime, enacting laws that only disarm law-abiding citizens is a poor and unacceptable Band-Aid.
Exposing the absurdity of gun-free zones by being absurd.
A public service announcement for criminals who support gun control.
Another public service announcement for criminals who support gun control.
John Stossel documentary about the myth that gun control reduces violence.