The tragedy in Tucson set us back on our heels a bit. It hurts. But what hurts almost as much are those who attempt to use the tragedy to push their own ideological agendas. Some, like Klugman of the New York Times are using it to push for laws that would infringe on free speech, particularly any sppech he disagrees with. Some are using it to profit - Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont is using the tragedy to solicit campaign donations. Reprehensible. Some, like Senator Durbin are using it to score political points.
And some, as could be expected, are using it to push for more gun control.
One person said that violent crimes are rampant in Arizona because of the state's lack of gun control. But what he failed to say was that violent crime rate in Arizona is less than 1/3 of the violent crime rate in the citry with the strictest gun laws. The violent crime rate in Arizona was 482.7 per 100,000. In Washington DC, with the strictest gun laws, it was 1,414.3 per 100,000 - more than three times higher.
Criminals do not like to take as many chances when they know their "prey" may be well-armed. They don't want to be shot any more than you do.
But here is a point to ponder - the people who want stricter gun laws because Loughner shot 16 people, killing 6 would never, ever push to outlaw vehicles if someone like Loughner had driven his SUV into the crowd, killing 30 people. So it appears they are hypocrites - they are not concerned with the killing or the killers. They are only concerned with disarming the public, making us "prey", with no way to defend ourselves.
There have been countless instances where armed citizens were able to prevent murders and other violent crimes. But the gun control crowd are not interested in that. Why is that?
George Washington was very clear in his strong stance that every American should have firearms. And at first, they did. And until the 1980's there was not a single instance where a child brought a gun to school to kill other kids. In spite of the fact that, until the 1960's, children were often permitted to bring guns to school, because they had to hunt for food as soon as school was out. I brought my own rifle to school every day of hunting season throughout my school years, through 1965.
If Loughner had not used a gun, he would have made a bomb, or used a fast-moving vehicle. Either would have been more devastating than the gun. He is deranged. Not having access to a gun would not have stopped him. Gun laws would not have stopped him. In DC they have strict guns laws - all the criminals still have guns, but the innocent citizens do not. Hence, the highest violent crime rate in the nation. Why not? Who is going to stop the criminal in DC? Certainly not the police, where there is only one officer for every several thousand citizens.
Gun laws are not the answer. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I strongly suspect that raising our young with a greater respect for life and property, and a strong moral background would go a long way. And devising a wise and sensible way of dealing with people who show serious signs of mental issues would help. Currently, we are not allowed to commit anyone for mental evaluation until they have already slipped off the edge. And until they commit a crime, they cannot be held against their will in an asylum. I understand that - it is a violation of their rights. But the rest of the citizenry also have rights, including the right to not be murdered by deranged persons. So we need to come up with a fair way to identify and deal with persons exhibiting signs of derangement.
And that's MY word.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment