Never use a tragedy for knee jerk legislation
January 3, 2012 1 Comment
The recent killings using a fire arm should not be used as some excuse to introduce knee jerk legislation. I didn’t think any of our MPs would suggest that the recent killings, awful and appalling as they were, provided a reason to ban the private storage of guns. But that is exactly what Chris Williamson, the Derby North MP has suggested. An honourable position to take – but in my view a ludicrous one.
If you are to ban the private storage of guns, would that mean my air rifle should be removed? And what about knives? I suspect there are far more killings using knives as weapon, including killings by the mentally unstable? You aren’t suggesting knives should be no longer allowed in our houses, yet people who have a legitimate reason to own a firearm should no longer be able to?
Yes the recent killing of innocent people in Durham is absolutely appalling, but removing guns from law abiding and mentally healthy people solves absolutely nothing.
Tory Radio 
We have the same problem in the USA – Liberals who are constantly whining about guns and wanting more & more “Gun Control” legislation, especially after every tragedy involving some “Nut Job” kill/wounding a bunch of people. Yes, of course, it’s tragic and horrific. What happens to the “Nut Jobs” when they can’t get a gun? Do they stop? No, no, they use their remaining brain cells to invent other forms of torture or maiming – knives, as was mentioned, explosive devices, arson, heck, just recently there was a case here in the US of a “boyfriend” who ran over (and killed) his pregnant girlfriend who had left him because she refused to have an abortion. So I guess we need to ban (in this case) pickup trucks, too??? Oh yeah, almost forgot 9/11 . . . guess we need to ban commercial airliners, too, right?
These folks use the same logic as Chris Williamson does. Frankly, I just don’t “Get It”! We have a favorite saying by Conservatives in the USA for those who wish to deny the right to bear arms, “When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns!”
Here’s the curious, tortured logic these folks try to purport:
1. Even the Libs agree that criminals don’t obey laws (sort of the definition of “criminal”, right?).
2. So, we’ll introduce more (and more) restrictive gun laws, requiring permits to own, permits to carry, permits for concealed-carry, background checks (excluding anyone who may have EVER consulted with a psychiatrist, regardless of reason), implementing a mandatory 3-day “cooling-off” period after purchasing until picking up the firearm, excluding “assault weapons” from private citizen’s ability to procure (with an EVER-expanding definition of what an assault weapon is!), and so on, ad infinite, ad nauseum.
3. Now, by doing all these things (in #2, above), somehow, as if by magic, these extremely restrictive measures (at least for most of us law-abiding citizens) will either negate or reverse Item #1 to the extent that the Criminals will NOW OBEY just this ONE LAW regarding firearms???? Huh? How’d do we get to that conclusion???
Fact is there is ALWAYS a black market for weapons (including firearms and also all sorts of other weaponry contraband). Denying OR RESTRICTING law-abiding citizens from procuring them will give that citizen what kind of chance if the proverbial BAD GUY is breaking into your home with intent to harm and/or kill you??? I have actually heard a Lib say that, given such a scenario, they would rather have a phone to call 911 than to have a firearm to shoot, perhaps fatally, an intruder bent on raping, pillaging, and perhaps killing the person(s) in that home. Give me a break! And how long ‘til your UK “Bobbies” come a runnin’ with Billie Clubs in hand to beat the guy into submission???
Ponder that thought for a bit and it might cause you to reflect! Especially, in the case of our liberal past US President, Jimmy Carter, who decided many years ago whilst in office that it would be a good idea to ban military personnel from (GET THIS) carrying their own government-issued handgun on them while “on base”, UNLESS on a training detail or official combat. So, what did that get us???
In 2009, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim Army PSYCHIATRIST (yep, some of those psychs are “Nut Jobs”, too), who goes on a shooting rampage ON BASE at Ft Hood in Texas. The toll of that rampage? 13 killed and more than two dozen wounded. How could this POSSIBLY happen, you ask? Yep, you guessed it! Because NO ONE, including uniformed soldiers, could stop the guy because NO ONE had a firearm with him/her except Hasan (who was carrying his personal gun on-base).
BTW, since the UK seems to have chosen to open its border to (unrestricted numbers of?) Muslims, you might find this curious: Hasan’s crimes were and continue to be broadcast in our media (by our current EXTREMELY liberal administration) as “workplace violence”, NOT as an act of terrorism – domestic or otherwise. Interestingly, this administration has done everything in its powers to delay Hasan’s military trial until AFTER the coming presidential elections in November (2012). Wonder why? You don’t suppose it might have anything to do with allegations of that our current president has possible Muslim background/origins, would it? Curiously, much of the delay has been a stall tactic because Hasan is now insisting that he be permitted to retain his beard for his trial due to it being intrinsic to his Muslim faith. Kind of curious in that he NEVER had a beard during the whole time he was serving in the Army prior to his slaughtering those innocent people! Prior coworkers, superiors, and trainers interviewed commented that Hasan had expressed controversial extremist remarks and that they worried about him being “Off” and really weird. Yet NO ONE (yep, NO ONE) would report him due to “Political Correctness” sensitivity training! Why, you ask? Because he was a Muslim and they feared they might be reprimanded for expressing such remarks as being “insensitive” to the man’s religious faith. How, you ask, could this be found as “workplace violence” (as opposed to terrorism) when, in fact, immediately prior to firing shots, Hasan chanted the familiar Muslim mantra used by Muslim terrorists right before they commit their act of terrorism, “Allah Akhbar” (please excuse spelling if I have spelled the phonetic Arabic incorrectly). Good Question!
Sidebar: As conundrum I have yet to figure out is how, in our United States where we staunchly support our Constitutional right of freedom of religious expression (which I whole-heartedly support) do we permit all religions (or perhaps no religion) when one particular religion has, as one of its fundamental doctrines, that persons of other religious faiths are to “be converted to Islam or be killed”? I do realize most Muslims are friendly, neighborly, nice folks (I lived in Saudi for years and know). I also realize that fortunately not all Muslims subscribe to that particular doctrine but, nevertheless, it’s there and I really can’t figure out how we deal with it. If we review terrorist activities since 1980 or so, nearly all have been committed by Muslim zealots. Maybe you “Limeys” have this all figured out and can enlighten us “Revolutionary Separatists” how we deal with this issue (just a little levity with these terms; please don’t take that part seriously).
Then there’s a similar shooting this past June 2012 at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina. This one DID, in fact, have the appearance of genuine “workplace violence”, in that an Army Specialist (a 27-year old American) shot & killed his superior officer who had previously had to bring charges against this guy for stealing from the military. To be fair, the Lt. Colonel, in this case, wouldn’t have had any better chance if he had his sidearm since the shooting was reportedly an ambush at very close range, execution style, with three shots to his head. Footnote: after the Specialist wounded another soldier who tried to intervene, he turned the gun on himself. While surviving the self-inflicted wound, he did subsequently die from his injuries; hence, no trial or court-martial.
As a further point in the “gun control” debate, in 1982, a small city in Georgia (Kennesaw, a “bedroom community” suburb of the huge metropolitan Atlanta) enacted a highly controversial law that REQUIRED every head-of-household to own and maintain a firearm. Opponents and liberal syndicated columnists forecasted doomsday scenarios with scenes from the (US) Wild West, with daily shoot-outs to settle even small domestic disturbances. Amazingly, to the contrary, the crime rate plummeted and even today, despite its substantial population growth in 30 years, Kennesaw continues to enjoy a crime-rate far less than other cities throughout the US. Also of note is that (at least until 2007, my latest documented source) there have been NO shootings within Kennesaw that resulted in death, either to the gun owner or the bullet recipient! How does one crank this 30-year “experiment” into the liberal (il)logic of banning guns to reduce violent crime? I have NO IDEA!
In summary, I’m sorry, Chris Williamson, I respect you as a member of the UK’s military and I know you probably serve your country well, respected by your citizens as we respect and appreciate our military forces. BUT, you WERE raised in Britain, once a very conservative nation, to really believe this horse manure. I’m here to say, not only is it not true but there simply is NO LOGIC that can present a valid case to prove it and that includes if we go all the way back to Cain & Abel in early Biblical times.
Man’s basic problem was, and still is, his inherent sin; and, it always will be. As the saying goes, “The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart”. Even a true born-again Christian, who’s repented and forgiven of his sins, cannot keep from sinning (though hopefully far less of it) because that is the way we are – imperfect. I believe, as the Bible states, that we’ve been that way since the fall of Man – Adam & Eve in the garden.
Sin presents itself in many different forms and different severity, depending upon the individual and the circumstances. When we deny the existence of sin, the danger is that we typically ALSO deny that man is even capable of such horrendous acts as these to which Williamson refers and which I mention herein. We often hear the lovely sounding “fluffball”, “Oh, I just believe that everyone is basically good! It’s just other factors that cause them to a take on a life of crime: education, environmental and/or socio-economic factors, race, etc.”. Hogwash! If that were true, then we would expect it would be consistently true in all areas from those who are raised under those conditions. How then do we explain the examples of outstanding citizens, leaders, etc., who have risen from the depths of poverty, poor socio-economic conditions, etc.
Oh, you’d like an example? OK, look up Dr. Ben Carson, M.D., the world-renowned brain neurosurgeon. Check out the video of the movie “Gifted Hands” if you’d like to see his story – it’s an outstanding flick. Here’s a kid (black) growing up in poverty & poor conditions, raised by an illiterate single-mother, doing very poorly in school, who finds his way to be the first African-American admitted to the renowned Johns Hopkins University Medical School of Neurology, to become the first black brain surgeon, to become the first surgeon to successfully separate Siamese twins, and many other firsts believed to be impossible. Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of similar examples.
With regard to that idiotic saying, “Oh, if only we could just educate people, this would solve our issues”. Balderdash! It IS NOT a problem of knowing right from wrong (except for the very rare individual who genuinely meets the highly restrictive definition of being truly “insane”). For the rest of us, given the right set of circumstances, we might conceivably do something thought by ourselves (and others) to be utterly impossible within our makeup and character. You simply cannot legislate this fatal flaw of mankind away! Read almost anywhere in the Bible (e.g. Romans 3:23; or whatever your source), it IS inherent to our human nature. Again, it IS the problem of our hearts – wicked as they are.
Cheers!