Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Behind The Liberal Support for Gun Control





What’s with blaming an inanimate object for the actions of humans?

Gun control advocates advocate “object control” for a problem (violence) that really is all about “people control.”

As is typical, Liberals can’t even assess the problem correctly.

The problem in the LIRR shooting wasn’t the gun, but Colin Ferguson.

The problem in the Luby’s Luncheonette rampage wasn’t the gun, it was George Hennard.

And the problem in the Virginia Tech (VT) rampage wasn’t the guns used, but deranged, loser, loner Cho Seung-Hui.

Part of the Liberal disdain for guns is that blaming the object or tool, allows them to retain sympathy for the deranged.

I don’t know, I have absolutely no sympathy for the likes of Ferguson, Hennard and Seung-Hui. My sympathy is reserved exclusively for the victims.

Gun control isn’t violence control.

Hell, a nationwide gun ban wouldn’t come close to banning mass murder!

The largest mass murder in U.S. history remains the Happyland Social Club fire. On March 25th, 1990 Julio Gonzalez used a dollar’s worth of gasoline, a small container and a makeshift wick to kill 87 people in the Happyland Social Club.

Gun control isn’t violence control, not by a long shot.

Ironically enough, statistics show that guns are used far more often in self or home defense than they are in crimes, so it would seem that guns save far more lives than they damage each year.

As much “sympathy” as Liberals routinely muster for the depraved, they are often extremely short on sympathy for regular people – shopkeepers, homeowners, and others who protect themselves with guns.

There was certainly little sympathy from the Left for 27 y/o Ronald Dixon, the Brooklyn Navy Vet who shot an intruder in his home as the assailant made his way upstairs where Dixon’s young daughter’s room was, just as there’s generally little Liberal sympathy for store-owners who use guns to protect their stores.

But there's plenty of underlying sympathy for the dispossessed, the maladjusted and other fellow malcontents...the very kind of folks who commit the above kinds of incidents.

That’s the primary reason why Liberals would rather blame guns (an inanimate object) then people like George Hennard, or Colin Ferguson, or Cho Seung-Hui.

And, of course, the Left would rather forget all about the likes of Peter Odighizuwa, the Nigerian national who went on a shooting spree on the grounds of the Appalachian School of Law.

After all, Peter Odighizuwa’s case shows why gun bans fail and armed civilians can stop such incidents in their tracks.

As John Lott noted, “The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.

"According to Lott: Having just returned from lunch, Gross was outside the law school building when Odighizuwa began shooting. Bridges was inside, waiting for class to start.

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

"Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled.
"Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.

So, why the misplaced sympathies?Why the Left’s sympathy for the “dispossessed,” the “disenfranchised’ and the chronically maladjusted?

Well, it could be that most of those who “protect themselves with guns” are property owners and “people of privilege.”

That’s certainly the case for Ron Dixon and most of the poor shopkeepers prosecuted in New York for defending their stores with illegal guns. It’s certainly the case for Ted Besen, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

The likes of George Hennard, Colin Ferguson and Cho Seung-Hui are far more typical of the kinds of people Liberals tend to reserve their sympathies for – angry losers who find current America “unfair, and over-burdening.”

That’s NOT America.

America is NOT innately unfair. It is NOT “racist, sexist, homophobic,” except to the grossly emotionally disturbed and chronically maladjusted.

So, in a sense, Liberals relate to and agree with the worldview of many of these pathetic losers, so instead of blaming the deranged gunmen, they blame the guns.

It’s really about as simple as that.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh snap son, 32 dead at VT tech. Kid bought a glock and a walther p22 from a gun shop. Your argument just got "shot" to hell, ironically.

Demented people who kill other people need a way to do so. So until we can ban demented people we need to ban (or make it harder to get) the guns they use.

JMK said...

WE're not about to scrap the 2nd Amendment now and there's no reason to even think about doing that, especially in light of the numerous similar attacks stopped in their tracks by other armed people - the Appalachian School of Law where two armed former cops and an unarmed ex-Marine disarmed a Nigerian student who'd flunked out of the law school and had already shot three people, and the Alabama Middle School, where an armed principal took down a gun weilding student.

John Lott is right - "More guns = less crime."

DEANBERRY said...

AMERICA'S NOW DOING EVERYTHING THE COMMUNISTS DID TO THEIR

PEOPLE. LOOKS LIKE THE CONSERVATIVES LOST AFTER ALL:

dinoberry.googlepages.com/home

Barry said...

Much as I dislike political activism, now may be a good time to up or contributions to the NRA.

JMK said...

You're right Barry!

I've let my NRA membership lapse.

Like all such groups they sometimes defend the idefensible (teflon coated or "cop killer" bullets, insta-checks, etc), but without that basic right to violent self-defense, a person is not truly free/self-owning.

mal said...

As a recovering former Dem who never has had any affinity for firearms nor love for the NRA, I was puzzled for years by the association's rigidity in not allowing even something so simple in my view as assault weapons to be banned.

But that was before what I, as a pipe smoker, found that the very same people (and, trust me, they are) did with smoking restrictions.

It started innocently (as would be the case with the assault weapons) in transcontinental flights.

Then it added long-term domestic flights.

Then it was all domestic flights altogether.

Then it was smoking cars on trains.

Then it was smoking in open areas in the airports.

Then it was smoking in indoor arenas.

Then it was eliminating designated smoking areas in airports and railroad terminals.

Then it was smoking in outdoor arenas.

Now, it is trying to prevent smoking outside of a building.

Or smoking in an apartment or condo.

Or a car with children under 18.

Or in some towns in California...period.

I have probably left out several other venues but the case is clear:

Give these do-gooders the slightest encouragement and they will do the rest - one step at a time.

JMK said...

Mal, you have it exactly right!

It's about micromanaging the lives of others.

I think all politicians have gone in for some of that (and some is too much), but the Democrats have raised it to an art form.

American Ideas Click Here!