Gun Control and the Chimera of Perfect Security [Archive]

mick silver

8th October 2015, 11:52 AM

Another nutcase has shot up a college again, killing nine people, before turning his gun on himself, as so many mass murderers are wont to do. As with most of these mass murders, everyone seems to have a theory as to why the killer did what he did. Every environmental factor is being ferreted out and put under a microscope to detect the source of the killer's murderous rage, perhaps in the hopes of preventing a future massacre.
Obama and many others are busy sneering at American gun owners, as if we, in our gluttonous love of firepower (maybe our desire to defend ourselves against crazies, criminals and government itself?), somehow have an indirect hand in enabling psychotics to gain access to firearms and thereby are complicit in the ensuing carnage. The killer's militant atheism, isolation, misanthropy, and social media history have been made the object of blame as well.
Amidst this post-massacre analysis, however, too few people are pointing out the obvious yet emotionally unsatisfying and politically unpopular truth: that everyone who is looking for meaning, or some sign that could have been discerned in advance to prevent the murders, are in search of a phantom.
When something tragic like this happens, we tend to look for solutions, even when a solution doesn't exist. A solution, some definite action that can be taken to prevent this from ever happening again, gives us a sense of closure. We feel better when elected leaders seem to know just what piece of legislation will patch up the societal ill that led to the cataclysm.
But the true danger lies in this type of politicized response to a tragedy that has no solution. It is a reality that life in any environment will bring with it some risk. This includes the occasional mad bomber or mass shooter who takes out a crowd of people. Yet after tragedies like the one in Oregon, a chorus of voices rise exclaiming a solution to the problem of mass murder, and it always requires granting more power to government and a restriction of liberty for the citizen.
Authoritarians plead with the public to finally have a "sane conversation" about gun control, or a "civilized" discussion about American "gun culture." Stephen Colbert opened his show the other night with just such. We want someone to blame when things go bad. We want to point a finger at some aspect of our culture that is absolutely, 100% certain, creating an "epidemic" of mass murder.
But if there is anything blameworthy in these events, might it not be the inherent "crazy" of each murderer? Are we to lock up everyone who has a history of mental health issues or who might be deemed a loner?
The War on Terror has been one gigantic exercise in giving the government the money and the power to engage a phantom. The years after 9/11 saw an explosion of growth in the Warfare State as a fearful populace, their paranoia fueled by a war-hungry media, silently consented to the construction of a massive surveillance apparatus, as well as a never-ending drone war, to combat "terrorism." But "terrorism" is a tactic, not a target, and granting government authority to pursue it means granting government authority to wage an endless war on behavior that it determines to be dangerous. The War on Terror has been bureaucratized, it has now become a jobs program, and its employees have a vested interest in the War on Terror continuing.
For all Obama's holier-than-thou posturing, he doesn't really care about the lives of innocents. A quick look at the mountain of innocent dead from his drone war on the Arabian Peninsula should convince one of that. No, he's doing the Deep State a favor, by attacking the institution that it fears the most: an armed populace. We are going to be subjected to an endless campaign of anti-gun propaganda until he gets his way.
It's already been said in many other outlets, but it's worth pointing out again that Obama conveniently ignores the nightly murder sprees in the city-wide gun-free zone of Chicago, his hometown. There were 60 murders (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-60-murders-makes-last-month-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/) in September alone, the highest monthly murder rate since 2002. Some killing sprees seem to lend themselves to politicization more than others.
The only lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that, and I can't believe I'm quoting Jeb Bush, "stuff happens." The unpredictable can't be contained or prevented by legislative decree. Laws against guns only disarm the law-abiding. An army of secret police snooping through citizens' private lives, in the hopes of finding a would-be killer, ends up doing nothing but ruining the lives of innocents.
Perfect security will only be ours in the grave, and attempting it among the living will very quickly lead to a prison planet. That Obama and many others appear so willing to become the benevolent jailers of such a society should give us pause before we buy into the hype that surrounds their "solutions" to tragedies that have no solution.
Shane Smith (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/36271/) is an accountant living in Norman, Oklahoma. He writes for Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/). Liberty is his religion.
- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36577/Shane-Smith-Gun-Control-and-the-Chimera-of-Perfect-Security/#sthash.OBXVqx0O.dpuf

mick silver

10th October 2015, 03:40 PM

Gun Control and the Progressive Concept of Human NatureBy Michael Bargo, Jr. (http://www.americanthinker.com/author/michael_bargo_jr/)
There are some very interesting implications of the way progressive Democrats handle the shooting incidents and the way they handle other aspects of human behavior. Progressive Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders rebel against the idea that the only way for citizens to protect themselves from gun violence is to carry guns themselves.
Of course, they, like the liberal Hollywood movie stars who speak out against gun violence, are complete hypocrites. They want one set of rules for themselves and another set for everyone else. The obvious proof of this is that these people, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and all other well known anti-gun Progressives insist that carrying guns is not a solution, yet they themselves would not step out of their cars or homes without a bodyguard standing close by toting a loaded handgun. And Hollywood movie stars who occasionally jump on the anti-gun ownership bandwagon have made millions in films that glorify gun violence.

That’s the obvious hypocrisy. But there exists a political hypocrisy at a deeper level. This hypocrisy is expanded when they insist that ordinary citizens jump through all sorts of legal obstacles in order to legally carry a gun, while they know full well that criminals can easily carry guns and in addition, that in the most violence cities like Chicago those who commit crimes with guns are not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They only want the full extent of the law to be applied to legal gun ownership.
What’s interesting is that after the gun murders committed at Umpqua Community College (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/01/officials-active-shooter-oregon-college/73153610/) in Oregon, Hillary Clinton claimed that it’s offensive (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-arming-people-stop-mass-shootings-illogical-offensive/) to state the position that people need guns to protect themselves from guns. It comes down to this: Progressive Democrats refuse to accept as a fact, that there are people out in public places who will, for whatever reason, unexpectedly kill other people. For some reason it’s always the gun’s fault that the murders were committed.
The fact is, for every four murders committed with a handgun one person is murdered with a knife (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls), yet Hillary Clinton has never ranted against knife ownership or said we need more knife control. Neither has any other political candidate, mayor, or public official who call themselves a progressive concerned with protecting the innocent.
The refusal to acknowledge the fact that it is an unfortunate fact of human nature that some people will always choose to kill others, by whatever means available, is what drives the denial of murder. This tendency of people to kill each other is repeatedly denied, yet progressives are never reluctant to affirm that human nature will always lead people to discriminate against people of color, that corporate executives will always be greedy, that Wall St. hedge fund managers will cheat the tax system as much as possible, and so on.
That some people refuse to heed the better angels of their nature only applies to gun ownership. And as a side note there is irrefutable evidence that banning guns not only does not prevent gun murders but the opposite is true; that banning handguns promotes handgun murder. When Chicago banned handgun ownership for 25 years the murder rate increased by 44% (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf). This is based on information from the FBI and the Chicago Police, who are in a better position to know the facts than some progressive who wants to run for President -- while having armed bodyguards.
Hillary Clinton and her ilk only accept bad behavior when it’s to their political advantage. They refuse to accept that violent people can only be stopped with guns, yet they have passed hundreds of community-based programs to fight against poverty, joblessness, and the lack of available birth control. They have no trouble or hesitation assuming that people do bad things with regard to racial profiling, bullying, or the use of politically incorrect language; yet with regard to shooting innocent people they are in denial that they only way for decent citizens to protect themselves is to own a gun. They do not propose community based programs for security guards and employees in schools carry guns as a solution.
Another issue is that by focusing on gun control they make the silly impression that the people who commit mass murders were not violating any other laws. The person who shot the victims in Oregon committed dozens of other crimes, and the fact that these other crimes, such as discharge of a weapon in a public no-gun zone, bringing a loaded weapon into a no-gun zone, assault with a deadly weapon, intent to kill, and murder are already serious crimes doesn’t matter. It’s not the major issue. Only the fact that the murders were done with a gun is the issue.
Progressive Democrats know for a fact that more gun laws will not stop somebody from murdering people in public. Proof of this is the fact that they always have bodyguards. And they know that more gun laws won’t stop it either, since the murderers commit dozens of crimes and none of those laws deterred them.
It’s only brought up as a campaign issue, to show that they are all for the innocent victims, when in reality if this college had had a number of armed teachers, maintenance employees, and so on, fewer people may have been killed.
But critical thinking is not something Progressive Democrats want to teach their potential voters. They intentionally choose to pursue issues that have no clear cut answer. This enables them to gain the sympathetic support of voters --- whom the Democrats hope will look past their armed bodyguards --- and make some political hay out of it.
The reason Progressive Democrats will not accept the fact that armed guards at schools will help is that they want this to be a campaign issue. After all, Hillary Clinton certainly can’t run on the idea that as Secretary of State she helped broker peace in the Middle East, or that the Obama administration improved the economy, balanced the budget, and lowered taxes for the middle class and poor, and reduced gun violence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chicago-shootings-gun-violence_560af0bfe4b0dd8503099034) in black neighborhoods. These have all gotten worse under Hillary and Obama.
What should be more offensive to voters is the fact that Democrats control cities where the black ghettoes are found, and that these innocents are murdered every day. But since these areas are under their complete control they don’t want to appear to be responsible. They only want to spin the issue so that the Republicans are NRA look responsible. The facts are always against them, so they need to spin the situation to run from the facts and turn their voters against Republicans.

There are some very interesting implications of the way progressive Democrats handle the shooting incidents and the way they handle other aspects of human behavior. Progressive Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders rebel against the idea that the only way for citizens to protect themselves from gun violence is to carry guns themselves.
Of course, they, like the liberal Hollywood movie stars who speak out against gun violence, are complete hypocrites. They want one set of rules for themselves and another set for everyone else. The obvious proof of this is that these people, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and all other well known anti-gun Progressives insist that carrying guns is not a solution, yet they themselves would not step out of their cars or homes without a bodyguard standing close by toting a loaded handgun. And Hollywood movie stars who occasionally jump on the anti-gun ownership bandwagon have made millions in films that glorify gun violence.
That’s the obvious hypocrisy. But there exists a political hypocrisy at a deeper level. This hypocrisy is expanded when they insist that ordinary citizens jump through all sorts of legal obstacles in order to legally carry a gun, while they know full well that criminals can easily carry guns and in addition, that in the most violence cities like Chicago those who commit crimes with guns are not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They only want the full extent of the law to be applied to legal gun ownership.
What’s interesting is that after the gun murders committed at Umpqua Community College (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/01/officials-active-shooter-oregon-college/73153610/) in Oregon, Hillary Clinton claimed that it’s offensive (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-arming-people-stop-mass-shootings-illogical-offensive/) to state the position that people need guns to protect themselves from guns. It comes down to this: Progressive Democrats refuse to accept as a fact, that there are people out in public places who will, for whatever reason, unexpectedly kill other people. For some reason it’s always the gun’s fault that the murders were committed.
The fact is, for every four murders committed with a handgun one person is murdered with a knife (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_w eapon_2009-2013.xls), yet Hillary Clinton has never ranted against knife ownership or said we need more knife control. Neither has any other political candidate, mayor, or public official who call themselves a progressive concerned with protecting the innocent.
The refusal to acknowledge the fact that it is an unfortunate fact of human nature that some people will always choose to kill others, by whatever means available, is what drives the denial of murder. This tendency of people to kill each other is repeatedly denied, yet progressives are never reluctant to affirm that human nature will always lead people to discriminate against people of color, that corporate executives will always be greedy, that Wall St. hedge fund managers will cheat the tax system as much as possible, and so on.
That some people refuse to heed the better angels of their nature only applies to gun ownership. And as a side note there is irrefutable evidence that banning guns not only does not prevent gun murders but the opposite is true; that banning handguns promotes handgun murder. When Chicago banned handgun ownership for 25 years the murder rate increased by 44% (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf). This is based on information from the FBI and the Chicago Police, who are in a better position to know the facts than some progressive who wants to run for President -- while having armed bodyguards.
Hillary Clinton and her ilk only accept bad behavior when it’s to their political advantage. They refuse to accept that violent people can only be stopped with guns, yet they have passed hundreds of community-based programs to fight against poverty, joblessness, and the lack of available birth control. They have no trouble or hesitation assuming that people do bad things with regard to racial profiling, bullying, or the use of politically incorrect language; yet with regard to shooting innocent people they are in denial that they only way for decent citizens to protect themselves is to own a gun. They do not propose community based programs for security guards and employees in schools carry guns as a solution.
Another issue is that by focusing on gun control they make the silly impression that the people who commit mass murders were not violating any other laws. The person who shot the victims in Oregon committed dozens of other crimes, and the fact that these other crimes, such as discharge of a weapon in a public no-gun zone, bringing a loaded weapon into a no-gun zone, assault with a deadly weapon, intent to kill, and murder are already serious crimes doesn’t matter. It’s not the major issue. Only the fact that the murders were done with a gun is the issue.
Progressive Democrats know for a fact that more gun laws will not stop somebody from murdering people in public. Proof of this is the fact that they always have bodyguards. And they know that more gun laws won’t stop it either, since the murderers commit dozens of crimes and none of those laws deterred them.
It’s only brought up as a campaign issue, to show that they are all for the innocent victims, when in reality if this college had had a number of armed teachers, maintenance employees, and so on, fewer people may have been killed.
But critical thinking is not something Progressive Democrats want to teach their potential voters. They intentionally choose to pursue issues that have no clear cut answer. This enables them to gain the sympathetic support of voters --- whom the Democrats hope will look past their armed bodyguards --- and make some political hay out of it.
The reason Progressive Democrats will not accept the fact that armed guards at schools will help is that they want this to be a campaign issue. After all, Hillary Clinton certainly can’t run on the idea that as Secretary of State she helped broker peace in the Middle East, or that the Obama administration improved the economy, balanced the budget, and lowered taxes for the middle class and poor, and reduced gun violence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chicago-shootings-gun-violence_560af0bfe4b0dd8503099034) in black neighborhoods. These have all gotten worse under Hillary and Obama.
What should be more offensive to voters is the fact that Democrats control cities where the black ghettoes are found, and that these innocents are murdered every day. But since these areas are under their complete control they don’t want to appear to be responsible. They only want to spin the issue so that the Republicans are NRA look responsible. The facts are always against them, so they need to spin the situation to run from the facts and turn their voters against Republicans.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/gun_control_and_the_progressive_concept_of_human_n ature.html#ixzz3oCviPapd
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)