Sandy Hook, The Second Amendment, And The Walking Dead Zombie Disease

flagI am an American. I love being an American; while I admire and harbor good will toward many other nations, this is my home. As an American, I was heartbroken over the twenty children who died last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But I was also angry. Outraged. Furious enough to break the political silence I have maintained through countless political elections and hot button debates.

America is on the verge of political meltdown. Whether it happens in our lifetime or our children’s lifetime remains to be seen, but it’s inevitable. Too many standards, too many core values have been swallowed by political correctness and liberalism that is every bit as rabid as the extreme right. Common sense is out the window, and a generation of people who have never been oppressed, never tasted war on our own soil, and never known true hardship is now making decisions for the rest of us. It’s frightening how reckless some of them can be with our Constitution and the principles this country was founded upon.

I am not against sensible gun control. I support background checks and waiting periods, concealed carry permits and required training. But the buzz about stricter gun laws scares me to death. Nowhere, at any time, has a ban on guns produced a drop in violent crime. In the past few days, I’ve probably reviewed every statistic on this issue that has ever been published. What I’ve discovered is that even statistics appearing to support gun control fall apart when you start pulling at the seams.

TNT online magazine reported today that: “The rate for murder by gunfire is 100 times that of the United Kingdom and only Colombia has a worse record for gun violence than the US. Every year, 17,000 people are killed in America, 70 per cent of them with guns, and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves.” Read article here.

But what about other statistics that TNT Magazine—and every other news outlet I know of—have failed to report? The statistics I have never seen are numbers that reveal how many of those crimes were committed by people who legally owned the weapon they used, versus how many were committed by those in possession of the weapon illegally. If they were committed by a person in illegal possession, then even the strictest gun laws would have been useless in preventing those crimes.

Guns are never going away. You can outlaw them, crush them, smelt them—no matter what measures we take within our borders, other countries will make sure our black market dealers and criminals have a never ending supply. Then, with criminals armed to the teeth and law abiding citizens empty handed, violent crime will skyrocket. Don’t believe me? Take a few minutes to watch the following video:

In contrast, the Georgia city of Kennesaw (a suburb of Atlanta) put a law on the books in 1982 that requires every head of household to be a registered gun owner. Despite dire predictions that the town would become the stage for a “Wild West Showdown,” crime rate plummeted, and for twenty-five years Kennesaw has reported zero fatal gun-related incidents. Read about it HERE.

To up the ante and study this phenomenon on a larger scale, one has only to consider Switzerland. Male residents are not only required to own guns (and females highly encouraged,) but are trained by the government to use them. Yet the gun-related crime rate is so low there that statistics are not even kept. “. . .despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.” (BBC article)

I am baffled at how so many intelligent, educated Americans can overlook facts as clearly presented as these. Are they blinded by fear? Addled by a Dr. Spock upbringing? Hypnotized? Brainwashed? Infected with the Walking Dead Zombie Disease? There is simply no argument any rational person can make in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

A comment exchange about the following picture illustrates the same lack of functional intelligence I speak of.

tiger

Lovely image, very artistic and suggestive. But here is where the line is drawn between grass roots common sense and idealistic delusion:

One person commented: “SCARY, scary image! (My own cat, a Maine Coon, scratched me today on his way down from my arms – his accidental power in a bigger cat would be fatal.)”

An idealistic dreamer commented: “look at the tiger….there is no violence in this moment…only love.”

I commented: “Thank God for glass!”

But what I really wanted to say was: “What planet are you on, moron? ‘Love?!’ You really believe that? Then why don’t you take your own kid and plop it down in front of a live tiger with no glass between them, and see how much ‘love’ comes out of THAT encounter!”

Have some people’s brains turned to oatmeal? All I can say is I sincerely hope that person’s comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

This brings me to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” How many of us realize—I mean, truly, deep down at the gut level understand—that this was written to keep our nation from being overthrown by tyranny? How many of us even know the true definition of tyranny? And how many can relate the concept to us—spoiled Americans—who become outraged if something as trivial as our “right” to spit on our own driveway is infringed?

Some readers will scoff at the idea of foreign invasion. But leave us defenseless and see how long it takes before some nutty third world leader tries. Or worse—a nation with a stronger military force than ours. Think we are such a superpower that no other military would dare challenge us? Between military budget cuts and a nationwide ban on guns, that scenario is not only possible, but likely.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is often credited (perhaps erroneously) as having said, “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Whether or not he actually said this is no real matter; somebody said it, and proper accreditation doesn’t dilute or strengthen the meaning. This is the same concept behind a statement I saw posted elsewhere on the Internet: “The anti-gun folks won’t like to admit this, but there is a reason why these mass shootings occur in schools and malls but not police stations …. and you know what that reason is.”

It bothers me that our government would consider disarming all U.S. citizens, or severely restricting our right to own and carry weapons. What bothers me more is how many U.S. citizens are so eager to hand over a constitutional right, as if it does not exist to protect the very freedoms they exercise when speaking out against current laws. Even more worrisome is that once we start chipping away at the Constitution, where will we stop? There are so many layers of concern in this gun control issue that one blog post can’t begin to explore them all. But I hope I’ve at least covered the basics.

I’ll leave you with this: in a perfect world, maybe guns would never have been invented in the first place. Who knows. But this world is far from perfect, and intelligent people deal with a situation the way it is, not the way they wish it could be. I wish we could all be pacifists. I wish we could all see tigers and babies playing peacefully together without three-inch glass between them. But that is not the world we live in, nor will it ever be no matter how many of our freedoms we surrender to idealism.


Feel free to share, redistribute, link to, or repost this article. I retain all copyright, but grant license for republication in the effort to disseminate information about this topic.

Advertisements

13 responses to “Sandy Hook, The Second Amendment, And The Walking Dead Zombie Disease

  1. Brilliant post! When I was a teen/young adult I was very anti-gun. Then I realized that bad guys who don’t observe the no murder laws won’t observe gun laws. And we’ve got to have guns in the hands of the good guys because there will always be bad guys. But some people are deluded.

    I have a friend whose husband said he wouldn’t kill somebody who was trying to kill his family because he’s a pacifist. I was shocked into silence. Then I thanked God that my husband wasn’t like that.

    That tiger and baby pic is scary! That one comment reminded me of that couple a while back who felt all warm and squishy about wild bears and then were killed by them. I love animals, but I sure don’t want to be eaten by one!

    • I think I saw a documentary about that couple who were killed by a bear. They were living in the wild with them, taking ridiculous chances, and even knew the one bear was unstable. And sure enough, he ate them.

  2. I live in a country now where guns are strongly limited. But it does not eliminate all crime. The news today reported 158 guns taken from 3 people… and hurried to follow up that the people were collectors and not suspected of being tied to the criminal elements… but they bought a lot of them from the criminals. The criminals will always have guns. And knives. Forbidding pocket knives hasn’t eliminated all the stabbings!

    Better education and rules about safe gun storage, etc., would help limit the accidents and help prevent unstable youth from getting their hands on their parents’ guns. And buying a gun legally is already pretty well controlld fromw hat I understand.

    It seems like the constitution has taken a lot of hits since 9/11 and a lot of otherwise sensible people seem willing and eager to give up their rights thinking it would give them some safety. But our founding fathers wrote those rules for a reason–because they’d lived WITHOUT some of those rights, knew how unsafe that was, and wanted to ensure that wouldn’t happen again.

  3. Well written Rhonda. I agree that guns will never go away.

    1) I’m quite upset with the video at 4 mins 36 secs. Australians are not “forced to hide behind bars and deadbolts” – that’s just part of our homes and property – it’s a part of our security and safety. People do indeed install surveillance as another means of security – my grandma has surveillance installed. The video seems to draw a conclusion that by taking away people’s guns, people will have to install gates, walls, fences, alarms, surveillance etc.

    2) I don’t know of any relatives who own firearms – or who have ever owned firearms – I’ve never even thought of owning a firearm. Of course gun related incidents occur – it is usually between the bike gangs (I’m not saying that’s a good thing – I’m not condoning these shootings). When I hear of a gun-related incident on the news, I am usually shocked.

    3) The video seems to be a little old – probably late 90’s. I never realised that Aussies had to give up their guns – I don’t remember this at all – I’m probably too young and have not researched this.

    However, notice how it does not discuss the Port Arthur Massacre (1996)? I’m pretty sure that’s why there were restrictions on gun ownership, because the video does not explain why the firearms were revoked. The culprit of the massacre, Martin Bryant, was mentally unstable – as are most – so unfortunately when the guns get into the hands of the wrong person, danger ensues. Maybe this is the real issue? Mental health?

    4) I don’t usually comment, but I hope that you’re not persuaded by that video. I also have not heard of any Aussie political groups campaigning for gun owner’s rights. Australia is quite a safe place.

    5) Also, those accents are terrible – we do not all speak like that. LOL.

    That is all I’d like to say for now.

    • I was hoping an Aussie would take the time to weigh in on this issue. The research I did seemed to confirm the statistic claims made in the video, as well as the information about the gun laws. But I was never able to confirm the original source of the video. It’s been cited by reputable news outlets, which did give it a grain of credibility. Maybe. If I find it’s bogus I’ll remove all reference to it. No clue about the accents. You think they might be actors?

      I do know that Mexico has some tough gun laws, yet statistics there are terrifying. Legislation has simply not been proven useful as a means of reducing violent crime.

  4. Good old Wikipedia does seem to support several of the most important claims made in the Australia video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

    This article also addresses the Port Arthur massacre as well as confirms speculation by Vince that we need just as many mental health discussions as firearm discussions.

  5. Thank you for adding the Wikipedia link!

    Notice how it claims that 5.2% own a firearm? I think this is accurate.
    It also claims that self-defence may not be accepted as a reason to issue a license. Therefore reflecting the society we live in – I feel safe – we feel safe – we don’t need guns to protect ourselves.

    I think there are massive societal differences – Americans are probably used to growing up with guns or knowing somebody with guns and feel threatened that it could all be revoked. Whereas most Aussies are not familiar with owning a gun. There’s also a mentality that if you have more firearms, your protection will be increased. Look at what happened after the Colorado shootings – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/gun-sales-soar-after-colorado-shooting/story-fnat7jnn-1226434334001
    This baffles me as I would have thought – the more firearms, the more shootings. It comes across as if America is so unsafe that citizens must have the option to own a gun – kill or be killed.

    One more point – money and employment should also be discussions. There are people who own gun shops – their entire business could be taken away and would be strongly opposed to gun control.

    Just my opinion, not trying to offend you.

    • Vince, you don’t offend me. 🙂 I welcome intelligent debate.

      Statistically, there is no clear evidence that strict gun control has reduced Australian crime rates one iota. I find much debate about the reliability of research done on the subject, but the truth is, most accepted study results reinforce the idea that the gun ban did not make Australia a safer place to live. Australia was a safe place to live before the crackdown, which surely contributes to the overall unawareness of this issue. Still, you mentioned that bars on the windows and alarm systems are the status quo for Australian citizens. I wonder why? That is not the case in America, especially rural America. Properties with these security features do exist, but generally it’s the exception rather than the rule. Many people in my area still sleep with their doors unlocked. Not a practice I endorse, but that’s how safe this region is compared to areas where every homeowner doesn’t sleep with a loaded shotgun propped beside the bed.

      On the other hand, our area is teeming with drug dealers and meth junkies, all of whom own guns and none of whom will surrender them in the event of a firearm ban. What, exactly, do you think will happen to the homeowner asleep in his bed with no means of defending his family or his property? Currently, break-ins and violent attacks are curtailed by the knowledge that if one invades a home while the owner is present, one will most likely leave in a body bag. Take away that inhibiting factor, combine it with the lawlessness of a criminal, a ineffective, overtaxed justice system, and the result will be mayhem.

      Take this one step further–why is it that mainland America has suffered no foreign attack or invasion since the Revolutionary War? It’s because every other country in the world knows our firepower. We do not make an inviting target, therefore peace is maintained. We are not the only nation kept safe by a powerful militia. I think this principle holds true in many countries, including Australia. It’s the presence of weapons and overwhelming means of defense that keeps the warmongers at bay.

      These rationalizations don’t even address the U.S. Constitution, which is a huge issue for Americans, not so much with non-Americans. But as a nation, we simply can’t concede a single word of it. There is just too much at stake.

  6. Awesome post, Rhonda. We live in a broken imperfect world full of imperfect people. There will always be crazy people out there that will find ways to get access to weapons.

  7. A very well written piece Rhonda. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, pacifist nor war-monger, pro-gun nor anti-gun control. I would classify myself as a little of each.

    I spent 14 years in the Marine Corps. I served proudly and honorably. I was trained in the use, care and respect of several different types of rifles and pistols. Before entering service I had only shot a weapon a couple times. My dad owned 2 firearms, a .22 longrifle and a 12 ga. shotgun. He never talked about them. He never let me shoot one nor did he ever train me on their use. His only words on the subject was “Stay out of my closet, keeps your hands off them or I will turn your ass so red you won’t be able to sit for the rest of your life”. Needless to say, I went into his closet several times to look at, to hold and to feel those guns.

    I was 17 the first time I fired a weapon. I was living in Arizona working as a mechanic at a gas station at the time. It was a Mini 14 that was owned by a coworker and his family. I went out with them a few times to ride the sand buggies, atv’s and just have fun. On one trip, they brought along the Mini 14. Kevin instructed me on how to hold it, point it, where the safety was, everything about the rifle and it’s power. I finally learned to respect the weapon and know what it could really do. It took a friend instead of a father to educate me. I never said it before but in reality, my dad failed me by not teaching about the weapons.

    I have owned several rifles and pistols over the years. The first one was a Ruger Blackhawk revolver. I bought it right after my 21st birthday in 1982. I took it out for target practice several times in Virginia with some fellow Marines. I became a very good shot with it. I did get a scare once but not from firing it though. I was driving to the area we shot our weapons one Saturday when I was pulled over by a local cop. There was something wrong with one of my tail lights if I remember correctly. While talking to me about the infraction he noticed my gun case on my passenger seat. He ordered me out of the vehicle and proceeded to open the case. He commented on my choice of weapons and we briefly talked about it. He then informed me that he was supposed to confiscate the pistol and issue me a ticket. What did I do wrong? I did not have a trigger lock on the pistol. A trigger lock it just that, a lock that attached to the trigger and trigger guard to prevent the trigger from being pulled. It required a key to remove it. He ‘cut me husk’ and gave me a chance to coply with the laws at the time. He said that I was to get a lock within a week, call him or show up at the station and prove to him that I had indeed bought the lock or he would issue the license and come after me to get the weapon. Legally he should have taken the pistol and given me a ticket but as a young Marine (he was a former Marine) he gave me the chance.

    Was the officer right or wrong? Both. He was supposed to enforce the law but bent it in my case. That brings me to my main point. Gun laws. Just in the United States alone, betgween local, state and Federal levels, there are over 1000 laws pertaining to firearms on the books. Less than 10% are enforced. If the laws in place were more stringently enforced, I am sure there would be less firearms related incidents taking place. Adding new laws or restrictions will do nothing as long as the people entrusted to enforce the laws don’t. As has been mentioned by you and others, banning the weapons won’t solve the problem either since those who don’t care about the laws, or are ignorant of them (as I was with the trigger lock) will still be able to get the weapons and use them as they see fit.

    • Outstanding comment, Craig! Would you consider letting me publish it as a regular post tomorrow? Many people read the articles from their email and never follow the links to read the comments. I think your viewpoint 100% supports everything Chrystie and I have said and would fit perfectly with the theme of common sense!

  8. “He said that I was to get a lock within a week, call him or show up at the station and prove to him that I had indeed bought the lock or he would issue the license and come after me to get the weapon” should say ‘issue me the ticket’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s