Well, of course I will make some comments.
This is part of my purpose in life, now, to point out the silliness of our responses to gun crimes like the most recent Colorado shooting.
1. I have heard that as many as 1 out of 7 people whose paths we cross every day are armed with handguns. I even see some of those guns strapped to hips in places like the coffee shop and the restaurant. Why didn't even one of these people defend themselves or others in the theater? What the hell?
2. The police are looking for "motives"; well, the greater fools, they. Motives? Name me one sensible motive for shooting 50 people at random? Never mind what this guy's "motives" were, go ahead and name me any sensible motive.
3. People are "shocked" and "saddened" and "horrified". Nonsense. I would venture that aside from the people who were actually there at the scene and the dearest friends and relatives of the victims, nobody is saddened or shocked. What is there to be surprised about?
4. Oh, was he mentally ill? It's no harder for a mentally ill person to acquire firearms in this country than for anyone else. Don't tell me we should keep the weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.
5. I think the guy had every Second Amendment right to his guns, just like everyone else. Don't you?
7 comments:
Agree completely - the national media's reaction reminds me of Captain Renault's comment, "I'm shocked, shocked" when he discovered gambling in Rick's place -
aha! You mean Casablanca!
I still don't want government to tell me I can't have a gun ---- egveryone benefits from the possibility that they may have agun in their home and it is good that crooks don't know which do and which don't, but this Colorado thing is awful ---- must be a compromise there somewhere if we can just get politicians to work together for a change to benefit all. And doesn't that sum up the problems with the current political system ?????
I'm not sure, Dashman, that I need an AK-47 in my house - or that I should be able to buy ammo on the internet.
And as long as the NRA can pour contributions into Congressional campaign committees there will be no compromise because the gun lobby has convinced many voters, especially white males (there I go again!), that any gun control law will lead down the slippery slope to banning all guns.
Interestingly enough, would James Holmes been able to accomplish the same deed with a machete? If the panicking crowd jammed the exits, would Holmes been able to hack away at the back of the crowd and do the same damage?
That would have been great fodder for the Newsroom.
With a machete, the weapon would have been in one place not flying all over the room at lightning speed like bullets from machine guns. He wouldv have been taken down; stopped by people in the crowd with not nearly the distruction that occured. I'm always amazed, whenever it is suggested that machine guns and rapid repeaters be controled or banned. Immediately, the NRA, their lobbists and all those who have been brain washed to agree with them, start crying oh they want to take away all your guns. Blah,blah, blah. When that is not the issue.
Some comments from the Australian press:
To the world outside the US, it seems commonsense. Societies cannot prevent people going on rampages, but we can minimise the harm by restricting access to the most murderous weapons.
The familiar catchcry of America's gun lobbyists is ''guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' But guns are a force multiplier for the same murderous impulses.
Post a Comment