The Huffington Post thinks there are points to be made by pointing out that there have been more mass shootings since Newtown than we have heard about. Well we all know there is a bias in headlines; I keep looking for them to publish articles highlighting the successful and justified defensive use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Silly question, but I wonder if they have considered how many people have saved their lives and the lives of others, including their loved ones, over that same period because they had a firearm for personal protection, either in their home, in their car, or concealed on their waist? Even if we were to believe - which I do not - that only one person per day had been able to defend only themselves, then that would mean more lives saved than lost to these "mass" shootings. And, of course, further analysis might even suggest, as with the Naval Yard tragedy, that the absence of the right to carry there had a detrimental effect. No, I am sure they will not note that such events are more likely to happen and be more devastating in places where only a criminal will carry a weapon.
As with the Zimmerman case, where those who felt he was in the wrong clearly thought it would have been better for his head to be battered into the sidewalk until he died, this kind of reportage forces one to ask whether these people would prefer that those who carry firearms and successfully protect themselves had simply been victims of attempted crime? Just as I alluded to before, if we all want to pretend that criminals are only bad because they have been treated unfairly, if we all want to believe that they would stay home or go to work if only they did not have access to a firearm, if we all want to believe that your grandmother, approached by two or more young gangsters does not need some equalizer, then we can all go to fairy tale land, where if only there were no more guns there would be no more crime. Folks, that is not the world we live in.
Better yet, in this world let's treat criminals like criminals, arrest, charge, convict, and incarcerate them. Let's stop making excuses for their behavior, no matter what race they are, and stop accusing law-abiding citizens of being the root of this problem. The problem is violence and crime, the disintegration of morals, values and culture. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but young African American male are not all angels any more than are young Caucasian males. No degree of "oppression" can justify crime. The liberal idea that today's thugs have somehow earned some latitude from the maltreatment of their ancestors has done nothing but give a large swath of the population the impression that they can commit crime without impunity. In fact, such a belief, such a position, infantilizes rather than promotes equality. It "keeps them in their place" as incapable of doing right without the man to cut them a break.
A prime example of this is the young Martins of the world, who get second, third, fourth and more chances because they are oppressed, poor, downtrodden, and come away with no lesson learned regarding acceptable behavior. Then, ultimately, they begin to consider themselves above the law , infinitely bad and untouchable (see the persona Martin projected in social media), and impervious to harm. In their impunity, supported by the state and their "hands off" parents, they make the poor decision to get in the face of the pudgy little Hispanic dude who dared to follow them; wrong person, wrong time, and they die as a result of people letting them have a pass again and again. If you want to blame martin's death on anyone, look at those who never required anything resembling decent behavior of him.
Aaron Alexis committed numerous firearms violations over a decade and was charged but never convicted of those events. He had numerous bouts of misconduct in the USN, but trying to separate him under a general discharge took so long that they handed him an honorable, as if he had served his country with honor as did I and so many of my fellow veterans. He told numerous mental health professionals that he heard voices (in this he is no different than many other shooters whose mental health issues were well known but largely unattended). His race is irrelevant to this. So he was hired as a civilian contractor, maintained a security clearance, and then one day agreed with those voices that it was time to kill. If you want to blame his actions on something, it is simply abdication of responsibility to look to the tool. Too busy with the rich getting richer, more wars to start, and every other damn thing in the world, to be sure that people who behave badly or abnormally are dealt with.
Foolish people look at these and other events and see only the firearm as a common element. What I see is a dereliction of duty among those who are supposed to protect the populace from such potential perpetrators as well as protect them from themselves. How much more information did we need on these people? What last bit of evidence was left to find expect that they would snap and kill?
And, in this world, where people fear holding others to some standard and let them commit crime after crime with no punishment, you expect the rest of us to give up our means of protection?
Sure, right.
No comments:
Post a Comment