Like about 40 gazillion people the world over, I am a law abiding gun owner. Of course, many, many people would have you believe that "law abiding gun owner" is an oxymoron. They believe that if you own a gun, you must be a criminal, and that's that. They don't like guns, they are scared of guns, they see guns as only to be used in criminal activity, and therefore no one should have them. End of story. Of course, that goes against every concept of freedom there is, but hey, as far as anti-gun people are concerned, freedom only extends to things they like. If you disagree with them, not only are you wrong, you're dangerous. Guns are involved in crime, therefore if you own a gun, you must be a criminal. But let's look at that "logical" thinking, shall we?
What they are stating, in effect, is that because some punk kid in a large city, some kid who has likely been arrested numerous times but never kept in jail due to overcrowding or bleeding heart attempts at "rehabilitation", because this kid gets hold of a gun (illegally, I might add, and never at your local gun shop) and kills someone while holding up a store to support his drug habit, that means that all guns are bad. Never ever should we consider blaming the kid. Oh no, it's not his fault. It's the society we've placed him in that's to blame. Oh, and the gun, of course. If the child didn't have a gun, he would have been an honor roll student. That evil damn gun. If we'd just get rid of all of those, there'd be no more killing, and the milk and honey would flow throughout the land. This argument is akin to me saying that because some jerkoff in Utah got behind the wheel of his car while drunk, and smashed into a school bus full of kids, killing them all, that we should just blame the brewery and the auto maker, and really, if we just banned all cars, this would never happen. Or this argument: Some nutcase in Wisconsin goes berserk and pounds his family to death with a baseball bat. You know, if we just would outlaw bats, this never would have happened. Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? And why? Because you drive all the time (and so do liberal politicians), and you never hurt anyone. You played baseball as a kid, and as far as you know, you've never pummeled anyone with a bat. You'd never consider banning cars or bats. Well hey, I shoot all the time, and I never hurt a soul. I am, as I stated above, a law abiding gun owner, as are the vast majority of gun owners in this country. Yet there are always groups out there who want to take away my guns, simply because they don't like them, and they are convinced they know what is best for me.
"Well," you say, "We need cars to get around, but why do we need guns? Answer me that, smart boy!" Well, why do we need baseball bats? They're only used for a game. It's not a useful game unless you play it professionally, so let's ban Little League, just to be sure no kid uses a bat in a dangerous manner. It sounds like I'm being flip, but look at the arguments used by gun control advocates. They make no more sense.
Do a lot of people die from firearm related incidents each year? Yes they do. There is no denying that. But is that the fault of the machinery? Of course not. I have never seen a gun jump up off a table, point itself at someone, and start banging away. Someone has to aim it and pull the trigger. It's too simple to blame the gun rather than focus on what underlying factor may have caused this person to feel he or she needed to shoot someone else, or why this person was not trained to use a firearm, and either was so stupid they shot themselves, or left it out where children could get to it.
Point of the matter is, guns are not the cause of any problem. They are a symptom. And banning guns would be tantamount to cutting off your head to cure dandruff. Not only doesn't it really cure it, it makes things just a tad worse. Guns are used for self defense an incredible number of times in this country every day. Convicted criminals, interviewed in prison, have confessed that alarms on homes are not deterrents, dogs are not deterrents, lights left on are not deterrents. Those can all be defeated. But if the criminal suspects an owner may be home, and may have a gun, they'll look for someone else to bother. They're in this to make money, not to get killed. Police have admitted they can't be everywhere at once. Think about it. It's night - someone breaks into your home - you pick up the phone and call 911, while this person slowly makes their way back to where you are, intent on raping you. He gets to your room in about a minute or so. What do you do? Well, if 911 is your only defense, you can ask him politely if he'd like to have a seat and wait the 10 to 15 minutes or so for the police to arrive. I'm sure he'd go for that. After all, I've no doubt you can convince him of the error of his ways.
Disagree with my thinking? Feel like telling me I'm right? Either way, feel free to e-mail me by clicking the icon below, or include your thoughts as part of my survey by going to that page using the link above.