Tuesday, July 01, 2008

And so it begins...

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the right to bear arms might have been legal... But was it for the common good?

Already, gun freaks [That's an offensive term. We prefer to label them sufferers of 'Small Manhood Syndrome' - Editorial Bear] are pushing the envelope to see just how much idiocy they can get away with.

Target Practice in Texas

Read the story here...

In Texas, a 62 year old man saw suspected burglars in his neighbour's house. He called 911 and told them he was going to take his twelve gauge and confront them.

In the 911 call, a dispatcher urged the Texan to stay inside his house and not risk lives.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" the Texas gunman answered. "I'm going to kill them."

And he did - shooting both burglars in the back.

Remarkably, a Grand Jury eventually decided not to press charges against the 62 year old, citing he committed the double homicide in self defence. Despite the fact that:
  • The burglars were outside, he was safely inside and they presented no immediate threat to him.
  • He shot them by surprise, in the back, again suggesting that they presented no immediate threat to him.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating burglary and I think if you break into somebody's house, you deserve everything you get. But there is a clear difference between self-defense and making a premeditated decision to ambush and shoot two (possibly unarmed) men in the back - especially after announcing your intention to a 911 operator beforehand!

Premeditated pre·med·i·tat·ed /prɪˈmɛdɪˌteɪtɪd/ –adjective : done deliberately; planned in advance: i.e. a premeditated murder.

This Texan wasn't 'defending his home.' He was 'administering justice.' That's not his job - and he should pay the penalty for taking the law into his own murderous hands.

Airport Antics

Georgia, home to the Duke boys and the gorgeous Katie from Cuppa Joe, has recently passed a law allowing people to carry concealed handguns pretty much anywhere they like.

Previously, even if you had a Carry and Conceal permit, you were forbidden from taking your gun into any store or business that displayed a sign banning handguns (it's called personal choice, people!)

Gun nuts have helped overturn that ruling, allowing people to heft their concealed 'manhood compensation' anywhere they'd like. But Atlanta airport - the most fearsome Delta hub on the planet - is not impressed with that ruling.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said; "allowing citizens to carry firearms would create an environment that would endanger millions of people."

And she's quite right. Airports are the last place I want self-righteous sociopaths to be packing heat. One wrong move and your turban-wearing baggage handler might suddenly find himself the wrong end of an idiot's '2nd Amendment Rights' just because he was guilty of 'lookin' kinda A-rab.'

Anybody who's seen Goldfinger knows that airplanes and guns don't mix. Therefore, I will feel a LOT safer if guns are quite rightly forbidden from the airport. Currently, the General Manager of the airport has made the situation clear: "Leave your firearms at home."

However, some people, like Republican Tim Bearden, have decided to ignore the politely worded instruction and boasted to the Associated Press that he'd be packing 'concealed heat' when he headed over to the airport to pick up his family that week.

Read the story (and weep) here.

Mentality

This is the problem with private gun ownership. THE PEOPLE WHO OWN GUNS.

In countries like Switzerland, the military is made up of a civilian militia and therefore every homeowner in the country is required, by law, to own a fully automatic rifle at home. Yet per head of population, their rate of gun crime is fractional compared to America's.

Why?

Because these poor people don't proudly choose to become gun owners. They have gun ownership thrust upon them. They are the very living embodiment of 'a well regulated militia' as defined by the 2nd Amendment - and well regulated militias don't shoot retreating burglars in the back.

I can understand the logic of private gun ownership. I can understand the desire to protect your home and family. What I can't understand is crossing that line from 'home defence' to pretending to be a cowboy. This is why I'm convinced that the most vocal advocates of gun ownership are the people least suitable to keep firearms!

4 comments:

Coffee Bean said...

The whole gun thing is a sticky issue. I haven't researched it so I don't have facts to back this up to present... but I believe a lot of criminal activity is with illegal firearms. Regardless of what our laws are there is going to always be those that go around it. We don't own guns but we talk about getting one. One can always find extreme cases to site to bolster their point of view. I don't think that guy that shot the burglars in the back did the right thing. I recall a story where a guy was sued by a burglar that the homeowner shot in the back and the burglar won. I don't believe those instances should be used to make or break a case against the right to bear arms. The criminals will always have guns... why take the right away from those that follow the law? People often bring up cases like school shootings and blame our laws for what those monsters did. It isn't guns that kill, it is the people pulling the trigger. I think that campus security at schools should be trained to carry guns. If I'd been a teacher at Virginia Tech and carried a concealed weapon I would have had no hesitation in taking that guy out. You can't use loud mouthed hillbillies to paint all of us who want to protect the right to bear arms. You did a great job below pointing out the asinine things being said about Obama and McCain. Step back and use those same skills to look at the gun issue from a different angle.

Coffee Bean said...

I decided to do a little poking around on the internet. Here are some sites you might find interesting:

Bureau of Justice Statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

This one is old... but, I still found it interesting:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

One thing I find a little bizarre when people start arguing this issue is the point that if people are allowed guns that the incidence of firearm related death will increase... Ummmmm... we are already allowed to own guns. The fight is over keeping that right... how would keeping that right increase firearm related deaths?

I'm going to have to check with my husband... but, he was telling me not long ago about some guys that escaped from prison in Texas. The headed north and I believe were caught here in Colorado. When they were asked why they went north, they said it was because too many people own guns in the south. Crum. I'm going to have to go see if I can find record of that now.

Mr. Militant Ginger... you are sucking up all of my afternoon and I haven't even begun to catch up on your posts from when I was away!

Roland Hulme said...

Hi Coffee Bean!

Although I get very frustrated by some of the things the pro-gun lobby say, fundamentally I do support the right to bear arms. It's a sticky issue, as you said.

You might be interested in what I wrote after the Virginia Tech shootings... We might be closer to seeing things the same way than you realise!

http://editorialbear.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-shootings-pass-buck.html

Coffee Bean said...

Yes, it appears so. As always, very well written.

I think one of the problems with the left and the right is that there is an assumption that because you align more closely with one of the two, that you agree with everything they stand for. When you get down to the nitty gritty with people, you often find that they don't agree on all points with whichever party they are affiliated with. It is a shame... but a fact... we are a two party system. I believe that had Ross Perot not been in the race long ago that Bush senior would have won. Had people thought it through they might have realized that by voting for Perot they were handing the election to Clinton... they might have chosen differently. Too often we have to choose the lesser of two evils.

I find you and your blog very interesting. You are not even a U.S. citizen and you know far more about our history and the whole political scene. It frightens me that I know so little and yet I know more than a lot of other people, especially women. I've heard so many people over the years who have openly admitted that they voted for someone because they thought they were attractive or that they didn't like the way the other guy spoke or that they just voted down the party line. I know people who had never even heard of the people running in local elections and just filled in bubbles willy nilly.

It makes me sad.