Since the tragic shooting in Colorado this past Friday, there has been a massive influx of commentaries on the issue of gun control flooding my Facebook feed. Both sides of the issue have been represented, but the side supporting restrictive gun laws has definitely been a bit more vocal. And seeing as it's an election year, many politicians are using the Colorado tragedy as a means to rise in the polls. Whether Republican or Democrat, I find it a bit despicable.
Twelve lives were lost. Over fifty more were affected forever. Some may never walk into a movie theatre again due to post-traumatic stress, panic attacks and debilitating fear. Families are now suffering from both massive amounts of grief and medical bills that, due to our flailing economy, they probably will not be able to afford. That those looking for power gains are willing to try and use the situation toward their own ends absolutely disgusts me.
However, that is not my main point.
I have two, actually--the first, quite simply, is about bullies. The second, about criminals.
Bullies prey on the weak. They target those who either cannot or will not fight back. Whether it is the biggest kid on the playground tormenting the smallest, the drunken husband beating on the wife who takes it in order to protect the child, the rapist jumping someone from behind or the shooter targeting a "gun free" zone because he knows no one will shoot back, in the end it is the same. Bullies, beating on the easy target. When the small kid gets in the big kid's face and shoves back, it's amazing how quickly the big kid backs off. When the would-be rape victim pulls out the pepper spray and the cell phone, quickly dialing 911, the rapist quickly turns tail and runs. And when the shooter takes a bullet from someone shooting back in self-defense, the death toll usually falls short of twelve.
Denying the right to own, carry and conceal a weapon, believing that such action will save lives is a fallacy. When you take away a person's ability to defend himself, he quickly becomes a target for bullies looking for easy prey--the only kind of prey for which they look. Restricting the possession of firearms to the public makes it that much easier for those who do go on shooting sprees to up their number of kills very rapidly. If someone tries to shoot me and I am unarmed, the best I can do is run for cover--any shooter with any determination to kill will simply continue to hunt me down and to fire until I am hit. If he's an accurate shot, I'm dead. Life lost. However, if I am armed and properly trained, when he shoots at me, I shoot back. And then, if he values his life at all, he must rethink his strategy and also look for cover. If I hit him, even if the wound is not life-threatening, it slows him down. There's also the possibility that he gives up entirely and leaves. Now yes, he may still hit me and I may go down. My life may still be lost.
However....
Insert this same scenario into a situation like the one on July 20, where a huge number of people are involved. When someone shoots back at the shooter and he takes that moment of hesitation to rethink what's going on, vital seconds pass where others can make it out the door and get to safety. If, unwilling to risk his own life, he gives up entirely and leaves, a lot less shooting happens and a lot less bullets find flesh in which to lodge themselves.
Three people that went to the Batman premier in Colorado de-armed themselves before entering the theatre because the theatre was a "gun-free" zone. Had they been allowed to keep their weapons in the theatre, there is the possibility that not only one, but three people could have been returning fire towards the shooter. I highly doubt that he would have continued with his deadly intent had he been dodging bullets from three different directions. But because the theatre was known publicly to be a "gun-free" zone, the shooter knew he would meet with no resistance. Easy prey for a bully. A smart, technical, and possibly insane bully, yes, but a bully nonetheless.
De-arming people in this case did NOT save lives. In all honesty, it most likely helped cost lives. Losing even one life is a tragedy. But losing twelve that might have been prevented under different circumstances? That is an absolute travesty.
As for my second point, as I said it regards criminals. Criminals are criminals for the simple fact that they DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS.
I've seen throughout my feed many comments regarding how if certain weapons were not made available to the public, such incidents would not occur. This my friends, is bullshit. If someone is bound and determined to shoot up a movie theatre, they will find a way. Something tells me that if someone is willing to commit twelve counts of murder and God knows how many counts of attempted murder, they're probably willing to illegally purchase a weapon. Not only illegally purchase the weapon, but not register it, scratch off the identification numbers on it, etc.
My husband and I are big fans of the show "Sons of Anarchy." For anyone not familiar with the show, it is about a motorcycle club, whose members' main source of income comes from running illegal weapons. While it is just a TV show, based on fiction, the underlying foundation is reality. A friend of my husband's looked into joining an Illinois-based MC a while ago. After he became a prospect, my husband asked him if it was like being on the set of SOA--running guns, drugs and prostitutes? His friend, in all seriousness answered, "Well, not the drugs. We don't get into that shit." Selling weapons on the black market happens all the time.
The fact is, obtaining weapons is not difficult for those who are determined to get them. They will break the law to get them with no qualms whatsoever. Passing laws that limit the rights of gun owners does not stop the criminals--because again, they DON'T FOLLOW LAWS--it only inhibits the ability of those who use their firearms responsibly to defend their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.
Guns are not responsible for the twelve lives lost in Colorado on July 20, 2012. James Egan Holmes is. Without Holmes wielding the weapons, no one would have been shot, because guns don't shoot themselves. Had the three individual gun owners who attended the film been allowed to carry their weapons instead of checking them at the door, Holmes may have been prevented from shooting so many times.
Bullies and criminals must be the ones held responsible for their actions. It is they who should be punished, not the general public. Limiting the rights of responsible gun owners because of a single psycho spree killer is like taking recess away from the entire class because one kid wouldn't shut up. It's not fair, it breeds resentment, and only hurts those who aren't at fault.
And if the whole point is to save lives, well....there's only one way lives are saved. Take your life back from the bully. Let him know that you can and will defend yourself and that he has no power over you. Watch how quickly he backs off and how much longer you stay alive.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed--2nd Amendment
"The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."--http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
No comments:
Post a Comment