Enough.

 

As I write this, thousands of people are participating in “The March For Our Lives” demonstrations in our nation’s capitol and in other cities across the country. The marches are a response to the horrific shooting in Parkland, Florida. The students who are participating in this march are scared of the violence that happens all too frequently in our neighborhoods.

I understand and share in that fear. In 2006, when my wife and I lived in Phoenix, there was a violent home invasion in the Arcadia district and a three-year-old boy was kidnapped. Our oldest son was three years old at the time, and it had a profound effect on how my wife and I perceived our personal safety.

“I want a home alarm system,” she said. “We’ll get one,” I said. “I also want a gun.”

So I went to my local shooting range, rented every 9mm pistol they had available, bought a gun, learned how to shoot and started carrying a gun whenever and wherever it was legal to do so.

Those two adorable boys are the reason why I started carrying a gun. I’m not going to march in the streets and I’m not going to ask anyone else to make me safe: I’m going to do everything in my power to make myself and my family safe. Realizing that the world is a scary place is a good thing, but hoping that someone will make the scary things go away is not going to solve the problem, because no matter how much you want someone else to meet your need to feel safe, they will fall short of that goal. Taking charge of your safety and becoming your own first responder is the only way you can be sure there will be someone who is trained and able to respond to a life-threatening emergency in your vicinity.

Enough. Take charge of your own security today. Don’t wait for the government. The life you save could be your own.

Published in Guns
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 83 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  1. Member

    Perhaps I am just cynical, but I really don’t think that the vast majority of those marching are actually afraid for their lives. I remember only too well the outburst of “sympathy” for Trayvon Martin following his shooting. I remember kids in my school making posters to hang on the walls, etc. The fact was that the teachers were ginning up the story for their own reasons, much having to do with their egos and sense of being “activists.” I am really tired of the left in its various permutations exploiting the young and the ignorant for their own egos and activist imagery. The majority of the media people pushing this nonsense have absolutely no idea about what it is to feel the need to protect yourself or your children in a world where when seconds count police are minutes away. After several incidents involving motorists harassing me while I rode my bicycle legally and appropriately on the roads I started carrying a small caliber handgun in the back pocket of my jersey, just in case. I truly hope I never, ever have to draw it out, but if the event does occur, be it a cougar when I am riding in the area around Mount Rainier National Park or some dimwit on motorcycle on an nearly empty farm road, I know there won’t be cop there to defend me, and I will need to be able to defend myself. My ability to do that gives me the confidence to continue doing what I enjoy doing, and, when needed, to assertively state my right to do so when someone thinks they can tell me otherwise. Most bullies don’t need anything more than a confident response to back off. 

    • #1
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:09 pm
    • 8 likes
  2. Member

    I’m not against you protecting your family and property. I’m not against the 2nd Amendment. I am against the availability of every kind of weapon known to man – assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line, in every town, at every “sporting goods store”, for sale. I understand where these kids are coming from and I agree with them. It’s not a popular opinion of you are a conservative. 

    However, we have evolved from a Judaeo-Christian nation, based on the rule of law and boundaries, to little to no faith, laws if you want to keep them or not (sanctuary cities), legalizing drugs, a mob mentality where freedom of speech is seriously in jeopardy, a youth culture with the highest mortality due to hard drugs and suicide, hopelessness, broken family life, broken mental health system, youth that are being taught that you need a safe space, distracted by electronics, who don’t know the Constitution how freedom was obtained and still is obtained and that it’s never free, nor is anything else worth having, that law enforcement is the enemy, and it just keeps getting worse.

    I am listening to what they are saying because it’s a cry for help and it’s time for change, on many levels.

    • #2
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:22 pm
    • 2 likes
  3. Member

    I just read a great article on Powerline pointing out the irony:

    the Parkland shooting represents abject governmental failure, at every level, to prevent these deaths .

    So, um, you take to the streets to ask the government to strip you of your methods of self defense, and to take even more  responsibility for your safety? 

    God save the United States. 

    • #3
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:25 pm
    • 18 likes
  4. Member

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    I am against the availability of every kind of weapon known to man – assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line, in every town, at every “sporting goods store”, for sale.

    We are not a gun crazed country. There is nothing wrong with buying and selling guns. It would be great to have a conversation with these kids, but unfortunately, they seem to think that anyone who doesn’t bow down before them wants to kill children. Somebody needs to tell them that listening is a two way street. Sorry if this comes across as insensitive, but what they are saying is outrageous. I am with @kevincreighton: Enough.

    • #4
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:28 pm
    • 14 likes
  5. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line,

    Definitions, please:

    “Assault weapon”: Is this WWII era gun an assault weapon? What about this Ruger? Is this AR-15 an assault weapon?

    What if I told you that all three are essentially the same gun, i.e. semi-automatic rifles that fire a medium power cartridge from a removable magazine that holds 20 or more rounds?

    “Rapid Fire”: Meet Jerry Miculek. He shoots revolvers. He shoots them REAL fast. Revolvers are not considered “rapid fire,” and yet with practice, Jerry makes them “rapid fire”. And don’t get me started on what lever-action rifles can do in the hands of cowboy re-enactors, one of America’s most-popular shooting sports.

    “guns are available online”: If I buy a gun from my friend Scott at Cheaper Than Dirt, I send him money, and he sends my gun to my local licensed gun dealer, where I fill out a 4473 and have a background check, just like as if I had bought it right there in the store.

    Your comments represent 90-95% of the problem: There are a lot of catchphrases being tossed around, and no real understanding of what any of them mean. In the media, there is a tolerance of ignorance of guns that would be unacceptable in any other area of news. I wouldn’t listen to a sportscaster who talks about the 4th period of a hockey game, and I don’t listen to 90% of the media when they talk about guns.

    • #5
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:48 pm
    • 20 likes
  6. Member

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    I am listening to what they are saying because it’s a cry for help and it’s time for change, on many levels.

    Among the kids and folks who are bombarded with propaganda every day there is concern. But it’s important to remember that the people pushing the propaganda care about taking down an amendment, they don’t care about guns. Think narcotics, has making them illegal made them less available? Clearly just the opposite. Even if we could reduce gun sales through controls across the country and begin collecting them from the good folks who would turn them in, their absence and the restrictions would raise the incentives to provide illegal guns. They can be disassembled and shipped in a million different ways, perhaps not as easily as cocaine or heroine powders but the rising returns to owning guns in a disarmed population would make it worth while. Such illegal traffic might keep guns out of the hands of some kid with an acute episode of something but that’s not the way to make good law, especially if we have to violate the constitution to do so.

    • #6
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:51 pm
    • 8 likes
  7. Member

    • #7
    • March 24, 2018 at 5:53 pm
    • 7 likes
  8. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    @frontseatcat To give you a better idea of “assault weapons” is a such a meaningless catchphrase, Shannon Watts of the gun control group Moms Demand Action tweeted out a picture of this rifle as the sort of high-powered weapon of war we need to get off the streets of our cities. 

    Except the rifle in question is a bolt-action .22, something that’s the very definition of an innocuous, commonplace firearm. Heck, they’re even completely legal to own in England and Australia. 

    See the problem? Unless there’s a mutual commitment to understanding, there can be no “conversation about guns”.

    • #8
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:06 pm
    • 8 likes
  9. Member

    Kevin Creighton:
    I understand and share in that fear. In 2006, when my wife and I lived in Phoenix, there was a violent home invasion in the Arcadia district and a three-year-old boy was kidnapped. Our oldest son was three years old at the time, and it had a profound effect on how my wife and I perceived our personal safety.

    Hypothetically: if you were convinced that more gun control/constraints would make America safer for children would you consider it?

    I’ve heard the arguments for why it wouldn’t, I’m asking: if it did

    Would it be worth it to diminish your 2nd amendment rights in order to make the country safer for children?

    That’s the path many other economically and culturally similar countries have taken – on the face of it successfully. It may not work the same way in the US, but it might.

    • #9
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:07 pm
    • 1 like
  10. Member

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Would it be worth it to diminish your 2nd amendment rights in order to make the country safer for children?

    No. Getting rid of cars and going back to the horse and buggy-or better yet, making everybody walk, would make the country safer for children. No one is suggesting that we do that.

    I am thinking long term, and the best way to keep children safe over the long term is to strongly support the 2nd amendment. We have seen the massacres that take place, over and over again, in countries where the people give up their guns. In a country where the government has a monopoly on firearms, the government is all powerful. No thank you.

    • #10
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:11 pm
    • 6 likes
  11. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Kevin Creighton:
    I understand and share in that fear. In 2006, when my wife and I lived in Phoenix, there was a violent home invasion in the Arcadia district and a three-year-old boy was kidnapped. Our oldest son was three years old at the time, and it had a profound effect on how my wife and I perceived our personal safety.

    Hypothetically: if you were convinced that more gun control/constraints would make America safer for children would you consider it?

    I’ve heard the arguments for why it wouldn’t, I’m asking: if it did.

    Would it be worth it to diminish your 2nd amendment rights in order to make the country safer for children?

    That’s the path many other economically and culturally similar countries have taken – on the face of it successfully. It may not work the same way in the US, but it might.

    Gun crime is up 46% in London… violent crimes have gone thru the ceiling in Australia. I went up to my native land of Canada back in 2011, where the most I could legally carry with me is a high-powered… flashlight, and the city of Edmonton was having the worst murder spree in their history.

    Kinda sorta wanted to have a good knife and my 9mm with me as well.

    Read this article from my cop friend Greg Ellifritz. This is what we’re dealing with here. Because you and I follow the law, we assume that other people are like us, and laws matter to them. But criminals, by their very definition, don’t really care about the law. Do you think that crook would hesitate to commit a crime because of another law?

    If I believed for a second that the same criminal who doesn’t blink twice at breaking all manner of laws about theft, rape and murder would not commit a crime because of tougher gun laws, yeah, I’d consider it. But reality says otherwise.

    • #11
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:18 pm
    • 6 likes
  12. Member

    Judithann Campbell (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Would it be worth it to diminish your 2nd amendment rights in order to make the country safer for children?

    No. Getting rid of cars and going back to the horse and buggy-or better yet, making everybody walk, would make the country safer for children. No one is suggesting that we do that.

    That would not make the country safer for children because that would make the country poor, which brings its own dangers. Wrt limiting your 2nd amendment rights: driving licences, seatbelts and speed limits might be useful analogies?

    • #12
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:29 pm
    • 2 likes
  13. Member

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Wrt limiting your 2nd amendment rights: driving licences, seatbelts and speed limits might be useful analogies?

    Um, depends on what kinds of limits you want. But, as any driving instructor or police officer will tell you, driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to drive is not enshrined in the Constitution; the right to own a gun is.

    I would give up cars before I would give up guns: really, seriously. Call me paranoid, but the Chinese government slaughtered 20 million people after taking away their guns. We know from experience that freedom is possible without cars; it isn’t possible without guns.

    • #13
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:38 pm
    • 8 likes
  14. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Judithann Campbell (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Would it be worth it to diminish your 2nd amendment rights in order to make the country safer for children?

    No. Getting rid of cars and going back to the horse and buggy-or better yet, making everybody walk, would make the country safer for children. No one is suggesting that we do that.

    That would not make the country safer for children because that would make the country poor, which brings its own dangers. Wrt limiting your 2nd amendment rights: driving licences, seatbelts and speed limits might be useful analogies?

    Treat guns like cars? SURE!!!!!

    1) No federal licensing or registration of car owners.

    (2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration.

    (3) Any adult — and in most states, 16- and 17-year-olds, as well — may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.

    (4) You can lose your license for proved misuse of the car, but not for most other misconduct.

    In addition to this, I can create almost any sort of gun I want (full-auto, suppressed, explosive cannon… whatever) and as long as it never leaves my property or used in a public place (private ranges are not public), the .gov couldn’t say one word against me.

     

    • #14
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:49 pm
    • 7 likes
  15. Member

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):

    Gun crime is up 46% in London…

    It is, but I’m unable to find comparable stats for a similarly populated US metropolitan area (like Chicago). According to Aunty:

    The Met Police’s figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.

    Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017.

    The Met said although crime rates were rising they remained at a much lower level than five years ago.

    From your response:

    violent crimes have gone thru the ceiling in Australia.

    No, they really haven’t.

    I went up to my native land of Canada back in 2011, where the most I could legally carry with me is a high-powered… flashlight, and the city of Edmonton was having the worst murder spree in their history.

    The easiest thing that came to hand:

    Based on police statistics and media reports from Canada’s largest cities, the Journal calculated how Edmonton’s 40 homicides stack up when compared to Canada’s other big cities. 

    As of Sept. 23, the city had a rate of 4.28 homicides per 100,000 people — the highest of Canada’s big cities. With 21 homicides, Winnipeg came in second with 2.97 slayings per 100,000 people. 

    Toronto, Canada’s largest city, had 41 homicides as of Sept. 23, a rate of 1.5 per 100,000 people.

    The numbers are based on the population of the cities themselves and did not include the surrounding metropolitan areas. The number of homicides was gleaned from media reports and police news releases.

    But the last para shows how hard it is to easily compare.

    Kinda sorta wanted to have a good knife and my 9mm with me as well.

    I understand it might have made you feel safer, but it’s hard to argue the stats that it actually makes societies safer.

    Or have I got them wrong?

     

    • #15
    • March 24, 2018 at 6:55 pm
    • 1 like
  16. Editor

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line,

    Definitions, please:

    “Assault weapon”: Is this WWII era gun an assault weapon? What about this Ruger? Is this AR-15 an assault weapon?

    What if I told you that all three are essentially the same gun, i.e. semi-automatic rifles that fire a medium power cartridge from a removable magazine that holds 20 or more rounds?

    “Rapid Fire”: Meet Jerry Miculek. He shoots revolvers. He shoots them REAL fast. Revolvers are not considered “rapid fire,” and yet with practice, Jerry makes them “rapid fire”. And don’t get me started on what lever-action rifles can do in the hands of cowboy re-enactors, one of America’s most-popular shooting sports.

    “guns are available online”: If I buy a gun from my friend Scott at Cheaper Than Dirt, I send him money, and he sends my gun to my local licensed gun dealer, where I fill out a 4473 and have a background check, just like as if I had bought it right there in the store.

    Your comments represent 90-95% of the problem: There are a lot of catchphrases being tossed around, and no real understanding of what any of them mean. In the media, there is a tolerance of ignorance of guns that would be unacceptable in any other area of news. I wouldn’t listen to a sportscaster who talks about the 4th period of a hockey game, and I don’t listen to 90% of the media when they talk about guns.

    amen

    • #16
    • March 24, 2018 at 7:19 pm
    • 4 likes
  17. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):

    Gun crime is up 46% in London…

    It is, but I’m unable to find comparable stats for a similarly populated US metropolitan area (like Chicago). According to Aunty:

    The Met Police’s figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.

    Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017.

    The Met said although crime rates were rising they remained at a much lower level than five years ago.

    From your response:

    violent crimes have gone thru the ceiling in Australia.

    No, they really haven’t.

    I went up to my native land of Canada back in 2011, where the most I could legally carry with me is a high-powered… flashlight, and the city of Edmonton was having the worst murder spree in their history.

    The easiest thing that came to hand:

    Based on police statistics and media reports from Canada’s largest cities, the Journal calculated how Edmonton’s 40 homicides stack up when compared to Canada’s other big cities.

    As of Sept. 23, the city had a rate of 4.28 homicides per 100,000 people — the highest of Canada’s big cities. With 21 homicides, Winnipeg came in second with 2.97 slayings per 100,000 people.

    Toronto, Canada’s largest city, had 41 homicides as of Sept. 23, a rate of 1.5 per 100,000 people.

    The numbers are based on the population of the cities themselves and did not include the surrounding metropolitan areas. The number of homicides was gleaned from media reports and police news releases.

    But the last para shows how hard it is to easily compare.

    Kinda sorta wanted to have a good knife and my 9mm with me as well.

    I understand it might have made you feel safer, but it’s hard to argue the stats that it actually makes societies safer.

    Or have I got them wrong?

    I am am not willing to bet the lives of my family on the government’s competence. Yes, the odds are low, but the stakes are quite literally mortal. 

    Again I say, we can pass all the laws we want, but they will only affect the law abiding. Start with that reality, then see where you wind up. 

     

    • #17
    • March 24, 2018 at 7:32 pm
    • 5 likes
  18. Member

    Kevin, your boys are darlings, look like you only cuter. Keep them safe!

    • #18
    • March 24, 2018 at 7:42 pm
    • 6 likes
  19. Member

    These kids say that adults have failed to keep them safe….I completely agree! Adults put smart phones in the hands of children and teens where they can text, drive and die – 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY per the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety due to this. Also, teens and children can view porn on their phones and even sext pics of themselves or others (thereby participating in child porn and its distribution). These phones provide unmonitored conduits for predators to contact young people and they are not equipped to deal with this type of manipulation. 

    I am horrified that an individual would shoot down any innocent people under any circumstances, but we make trade offs everyday – cars, smart phones, youth sports and yes, gun rights. Horrible events do not always require a major change in policy.

    But if we are going down this road, outlaw the smart phones first! More young lives saved in two days than in a whole year of school shootings.

    • #19
    • March 24, 2018 at 8:14 pm
    • 10 likes
  20. Member

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    I’m not against you protecting your family and property. I’m not against the 2nd Amendment. I am against the availability of every kind of weapon known to man – assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line, in every town, at every “sporting goods store”, for sale. I understand where these kids are coming from and I agree with them. It’s not a popular opinion of you are a conservative.

    I apologize up front for being blunt, I promise to be civil, and I do wish to have a productive conversation with you. But it would be far easier to have a productive conversation if you would refrain from silly hyperbole (“gun-crazed”, “every kind of weapon known to man” — there are plenty of laws in place restricting what kinds of weapons can be owned by civilians) and familiarize yourself with the issue at hand. Using vague, hand-wavy language based on impressions is exactly how we end up with arbitrary, unbeneficial, freedom-crushing laws.

    What is wrong with guns being available for purchase “in every town” and at “sporting goods stores”? Where should they be available? Only towns of a certain size? Only stores that also don’t sell baseball equipment?

    What do you think is the problem with online gun purchases? They have to go through the same background checks at local, licensed firearms dealers as any in-store purchase.

    • #20
    • March 25, 2018 at 12:51 am
    • 13 likes
  21. Member

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):

    I am am not willing to bet the lives of my family on the government’s competence.

    If it’s about Govt incompetence surely that’s the issue you want to address, and it’s an issue that would have a broader impact than gun violence.

    Is the US Government uniquely incompetent, or are people in other comparable countries (like Australia) willing to live with a level of gun violence that people in the US are not? Neither of these seems a realistic take on the situation.

    Yes, the odds are low, but the stakes are quite literally mortal.

    I get that, but it strikes me that it’s similar to parents’ reluctance to give their children immunisation shots because they fear a link between these and triggering autism. They argue that there is a very small (so far unproved, but fwiw) chance of this happening.

    This is completely their right, and if the rest of the population is vaccinated against small pox then there’s a very very low chance that not vaccinating your child will expose them to the virus. It’s win win.

    But if enough parents make that same decision, then herd immunity goes down and that low chance gets higher.

    Again I say, we can pass all the laws we want, but they will only affect the law abiding. Start with that reality, then see where you wind up.

    Obviously people who commit a gun related crime are criminals after they do this (by definition), but how many of them are career criminals before that? I know a significant proportion of gun violence involves gangs and break ins and what not, but a significant proportion (including successful suicides and I’m going to hazard a guess just about every school shooting) does not.

    And the issue isn’t just crimes related to guns, but gun related violence, right?

    • #21
    • March 25, 2018 at 1:34 am
    • Like
  22. Thatcher

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    I’m not against you protecting your family and property. I’m not against the 2nd Amendment. I am against the availability of every kind of weapon known to man – assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line, in every town, at every “sporting goods store”, for sale. I understand where these kids are coming from and I agree with them. It’s not a popular opinion of you are a conservative.

    Sorry, but you are against the second amendment. The incoherence above demonstrates it.

    However, we have evolved from a Judaeo-Christian nation, based on the rule of law and boundaries, to little to no faith, laws if you want to keep them or not (sanctuary cities), legalizing drugs, a mob mentality where freedom of speech is seriously in jeopardy, a youth culture with the highest mortality due to hard drugs and suicide, hopelessness, broken family life, broken mental health system, youth that are being taught that you need a safe space, distracted by electronics, who don’t know the Constitution how freedom was obtained and still is obtained and that it’s never free, nor is anything else worth having, that law enforcement is the enemy, and it just keeps getting worse.

    You are furthering the incoherence with an emotional appeal that has no causative connection to firearms ownership by the general public. If any connection exists, it is the opposite of what you are saying. On top of that, you are twisting Judeo-Christian tenets to support your appeal. Whether you are doing so from ignorance or willful rejection of two millenia of Christian teaching, you are contradicting my duty to defend myself, my family, and my community, with deadly force if necessary. I believe this is best expressed in the Roman Catholic catechism,(See para 2265 in particular), a summary of St. Augustine’s work on just war and individual justice.

    I am listening to what they are saying because it’s a cry for help and it’s time for change, on many levels.

    It is indeed a time for change. Continuing change to ram these emotional anti-gun screeds into the dumpster where they belong. And over the past couple decades, great strides have been taken restoring citizens’ ability to defend themselves, and restoring to the public the understanding that the government not only is not required to protect you, but cannot and does not want to protect you.

    • #22
    • March 25, 2018 at 6:13 am
    • 7 likes
  23. Member

    I had the same argument when I first joined up here at Ricochet, Zafar, and I got trounced. Not because people like Kevin were mean to me, but because the slam-dunk rhetorical questions I asked (pretty much the same ones you would ask) turn out to have answers. 

    So here are a few notes:

    1.) Suicides are—yes—far and away the majority of gun deaths in the US. And yes, there are suicides that probably wouldn’t happen if guns weren’t as available. So there’s that. 

    If you group all deaths via bullet together as “gun violence” the obvious solution is to get rid of the guns.

    There are other ways to group and understand these events, however, ways that might yield other and perhaps better answers.

    Suicides by gun could be grouped with suicides by all means and with the recent string of bombings in Austin, the school shootings, shootings of civilians by police officers and, for that matter, the homeless problem L.A. as evidence that the mental health system in America stinks. (Were the young ‘uns to march on DC in favor of improvements in how we care for suffering people, everyone, including every cop in America, would enthusiastically join in). Provide for better care of mentally ill people, moreover, and not only might you be able to avoid another Parkland; you would alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans, most of whom won’t ever hurt anyone but themselves. 

    Similarly, the Orlando Nightclub shooting could be grouped with the BostonMarathon bombing, the attack at Fort Hood and other Islamist terrorist violence. Very recent events in France show that terrorists do not seem to have much trouble getting hold of and using guns, even though guns are illegal. 

    2.) If you pass new gun laws, how are these going to be enforced? One answer, provided by Parkland (and underscored by Orlando, et al) is “incompetently.” But another answer could be “with the aggressive law enforcement that life-and-death issues demand.”

    Okay then: A student activist was interviewed on NPR the other day; he talked about how, as a young black Bostonian, he was offended that it took murders in a majority-white high school to outrage America when black neighborhoods like his were far more grievously afflicted. Then he said he was also concerned about police violence against black men. 

    The problem in a nutshell: more gun laws means more police activity in high-gun-crime neighborhoods; more young black men getting hassled by the cops (Stop and Frisk was an anti-illegal-gun tactic) getting arrested and going to prison.

    3.) Children in Maine and Vermont are much safer than children in Chicago. Guns are legal in Maine and Vermont (and there are plenty of them around). Guns are illegal in Chicago (and there are plenty of them around). Children in Chicago are not only at risk of being shot, they are also at risk of being abused, neglected, raped, injured in accidents, deprived of necessary medical care and education and they are overwhelmingly more likely to be raised without a dad. Solve the problem of why inner city black kids are so screwed on so many levels, and the gun violence will probably get solved along with it.

    Etc. 

    What I came to realize is that outlawing guns (even if I weren’t persuaded by the 2A arguments, which I increasingly am) would be an incredibly arduous, inefficient, expensive and violent way to “solve” only one dimension of any number of complex problems that cry out for comprehensive solutions.

    • #23
    • March 25, 2018 at 6:26 am
    • 15 likes
  24. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Obviously people who commit a gun related crime are criminals after they do this (by definition), but how many of them are career criminals before that?

    Pretty much all of them. David Yamane is a sociologist at Wake Forest studying modern gun culture, and here’s a link that shows how the risk is unequal. Bottom line is, we talk about the murder rate in the U.S., but nobody lives in the “United States of America”: We live in little clusters of communities, some of them a LOT more dangerous than others. Given these facts, a national debate on “gun violence” is kinda silly. The problem is local, not national.

    To make matters worse, there’s really no bulletproof research as to how much an armed citizenry deters crime. Kleck, Lott and others have done some good stuff, but it’s nothing I’d consider to be rock-solid. For myself, if we consider criminal violence to be a disease within society as if it were a pathogen inside the body, the quicker a white blood cell / armed citizen can respond, the less chance the disease has to grow and spread. As my friend Erin Palette of the LBGTQ gun group Blazing Sword says, firearms are a herd immunity against crime.

    As for suicides… yeah, that’s a problem. Don’t really have a solution. My good friend and fellow gun writer Bob Owens took his own life with a gun after he yielded to the demon of depression that lurked inside of him. Would he have chosen something more long term like alcoholism or meth had he not had access to guns? No way to tell.

    I’m… not completely opposed to the idea of extreme violence protection orders, but I think those restrictive new laws should be balanced out by allowing anyone who has taken out a restraining order to immediately get a CCW, even if they’re in a restrictive state like New York. The most dangerous time in a woman’s life is the first 24 hours after she’s taken out a restraining order: Let’s give her a fighting chance.

    • #24
    • March 25, 2018 at 6:57 am
    • 9 likes
  25. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I’m going to hazard a guess just about every school shooting

    As for school shootings, we know what works to limit the casualties at those events, but what works isn’t what’s in fashion at the moment, so we ignore it. 

    • #25
    • March 25, 2018 at 7:31 am
    • 4 likes
  26. Contributor

    You are my role model, @kevincreighton, and inspiration for my recent action. Thanks for your post.

    • #26
    • March 25, 2018 at 8:18 am
    • 7 likes
  27. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    I’m not against you protecting your family and property. I’m not against the 2nd Amendment. I am against the availability of every kind of weapon known to man – assault weapons, rapid fire, etc. because we have a gun-crazed country and guns available on line, in every town, at every “sporting goods store”, for sale. I understand where these kids are coming from and I agree with them. It’s not a popular opinion of you are a conservative.

    Sorry, but you are against the second amendment. The incoherence above demonstrates it.

    However, we have evolved from a Judaeo-Christian nation, based on the rule of law and boundaries, to little to no faith, laws if you want to keep them or not (sanctuary cities), legalizing drugs, a mob mentality where freedom of speech is seriously in jeopardy, a youth culture with the highest mortality due to hard drugs and suicide, hopelessness, broken family life, broken mental health system, youth that are being taught that you need a safe space, distracted by electronics, who don’t know the Constitution how freedom was obtained and still is obtained and that it’s never free, nor is anything else worth having, that law enforcement is the enemy, and it just keeps getting worse.

    You are furthering the incoherence with an emotional appeal that has no causative connection to firearms ownership by the general public. If any connection exists, it is the opposite of what you are saying. On top of that, you are twisting Judeo-Christian tenets to support your appeal. Whether you are doing so from ignorance or willful rejection of two millenia of Christian teaching, you are contradicting my duty to defend myself, my family, and my community, with deadly force if necessary. I believe this is best expressed in the Roman Catholic catechism,(See para 2265 in particular), a summary of St. Augustine’s work on just war and individual justice.

    I am listening to what they are saying because it’s a cry for help and it’s time for change, on many levels.

    It is indeed a time for change. Continuing change to ram these emotional anti-gun screeds into the dumpster where they belong. And over the past couple decades, great strides have been taken restoring citizens’ ability to defend themselves, and restoring to the public the understanding that the government not only is not required to protect you, but cannot and does not want to protect you.

    Armed self-defense is a Biblical concept that goes back at least as far as Gideon raising an army to defend Israel, (and then there’s Mordecai’s and Esther’s response to Haman’s attempt at genocide… the roof Koreans in the ’92 LA riots would be proud of what those two did…).

    I digress. 

    Self-defense and the use of lethal force to defend yourself and your family is 100% Biblical, IMO, but (and here’s the kicker) so is pacifism. I’m not going to encourage pacifists to take up arms, and I hope they reciprocate in kind.

    • #27
    • March 25, 2018 at 8:22 am
    • 8 likes
  28. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    You are my role model

    Well there’s a terrifying thought… :) 

    • #28
    • March 25, 2018 at 9:26 am
    • 5 likes
  29. Coolidge

    Dominique Prynne (View Comment):
    smart phones

    They are not called “cell” phones anymore? Serious question.

    • #29
    • March 25, 2018 at 10:55 am
    • 5 likes
  30. Moderator

    ST (View Comment):

    Dominique Prynne (View Comment):
    smart phones

    They are not called “cell” phones anymore? Serious question.

    A smart phone is a cell phone that can also be used to access the internet.

    • #30
    • March 25, 2018 at 11:07 am
    • 6 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3