The naive theorist will challenge NRA members with, “Would it not be preferable to surrender individual gun ownership in order to stop all this senseless violence?” The statistics flow from these believers with numbers of accidents, unsuccessful struggles with burglars, and the biggie — 11,000 annual deaths from gunshot wounds. And I think that we err in responding directly to the faulty premise of their appeal. The motivations for defending the right to individual gun ownership generally fall into three categories; personal protection, citizen defense against an oppressive state, and hunting. . . . As in most partisan debates, the political leadership on the left uses misdirection to leverage a more popular urgency that would result in the desired outcome. Rank and file leftists are single-minded with the expedient solution of eliminating personal weapons in order to eradicate violence against citizens. Leftist leadership, however, wishes to eliminate personal weapons in order to prevent the people from having the power to uprise against the state. . . . The appropriate response to the gun-control advocate who cites death statistics where gun ownership is allowed is to cite death statistics where gun ownership has been denied. With Second Amendment rights in the United States, there were 11,000 homicides using firearms in 2010. With no such rights in the former Soviet Union, the state murdered over 6,000,000 citizens annually. China topped out at 3,500,000 each year. And Germany exceeded 2,000,000 in annual murders during their Nazi era. Individual firearms control is the sign of a misplaced fear.
Look, stuff happens when and where you don’t think it’ll happen. My recommendation to you, the good citizen, is to get equipped with a gun—a fire-breathing dragon of a weapon. Get proficient with it. Make it like a cell phone: an additional appendage to your body. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it. However, should you be in line at the grocery store, or at Chili’s eating a burger, or at a park playing football with your homies, and some James Holmes wannabe shows up carting an arsenal and quoting Kafka as he shoots kids … you’ll be ready. Simply find cover if you can, draw your weapon, take a fine bead, and double tap the center mass of the murderous jackass. Should he or she have a bulletproof vest on then pull your sight picture up to the perp’s noggin and shoot him or her in the head; it’ll explode like a watermelon. You’ll feel bad for a nanosecond. But then the cops and families will show up and thank you for putting Jack the Ripper down. The end.
Victor Davis Hanson:
As of now we know little about what conditions drove, or proved useful to, the Aurora suspect to murder and maim. But given the worldwide incidences of so-called “rampage killings,” the culprit was not the particular gun laws of Colorado. His dark counterparts exist in contemporary Norway, Uganda, Russia, and Latin America. I am sure there is a typology of the multifarious conditions that might prompt such demonic killers—workplace anger, spousal revenge, school-related grudges, religious fanaticism, race or ethnic hatred, political extremism, and abject insanity that offers no exegesis at all. So far we have heard that guns did it; or that there were unfortunately not any good gunmen in the theater to stop him; or that the mentally ill are not closely enough watched, medicated, or hospitalized; or that we live in a “sick” culture; and on and on.
One unmentioned fact is that rampage killing is not necessarily a modern phenomenon, although firearms as force multipliers facilitate it and up the horrific body count. Killers in the 19th century often shot down innocent bystanders. Yet I think there are some new developments that already have brought hundreds of millions worldwide into the horrifically demonic mind of the suspect James Holmes. . . .
All of which brings us to our third symptom of the modern age that makes the contemporary rampage killer somehow different. If the suspect is charged and found guilty, I have zero confidence that he will be hanged. I have a great deal of confidence that over the next five years, his awful presence will pop up on a news broadcast. We can execute bin Laden and high-five it; we can incinerate over 2,000 suspected terrorists by video-controlled Predators, and have the president brag about it in warning away suitors from his daughters at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner— but we cannot do the same for someone who was tried, convicted, and sentenced for horrifically destroying people. . . . Tonight, I wish to know nothing about him other than the information necessary to try, convict, and punish him—and any data that might provide some sort of deterrence in preventing another such rampage. . . .
In other words, I don’t care a whit whether the Aurora killer was a loner. I don’t care if he was unhappy or if he was on medication. Millions share such pathologies without killing a mouse. I don’t even know whether giving him swift justice will deter the next mass shooter. Yes, give the suspect expert legal counsel; call in all the psychiatrists imaginable; sequester the jury; ensure the judge is a pillar of jurisprudence; but if he is found guilty, I would prefer the gallows and quickly so, to remind us that we live in a civilization that prefers to remember the victims and to remember nothing at all of their killer.
In an unrelated news bit, Jefferson’s Rebels reports on a Democrat Minnesota state politician who is an underground Islamic militant and conspirator via Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR.
Now maybe you realize why I advocate that all candidates who want to run for office in Congress and as President of the United States, VP and his Cabinet members should undergo a thorough background check before qualifying to run for office. After all, they have access to sensitive information and what makes them better than the military members and other folks that must undergo the same process to receive a security clearance?
It should would have prevented woes, tribulations, and unconstitutional acts concerning one Barack Hussein Obama, alias Barry Soetoro as Senator and President of the United States. And it certainly would have prevented Keith Ellison from holding office in Congress, for sure.What were the voters in Minnesota thinking? If indeed he won the election honestly.