Previous

Contents

Next

Some Things Never Change
by Sean Gangol
[email protected]

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

For the past five months both the government and the media have been on full-spin mode on the issue of victim disarmament. Ever since the horrific shooting in Connecticut, the victim disarmament crowd has done everything in their ability to exploit this tragedy, which seems to be the case whenever a shooting takes place. Rest assured you will always find people that will never hesitate to dance in the blood of the victims, especially when the victims are children. There are some things that never change.

Once again, the politicians and the media that squats to lick their boots are trying their hardest to push the same old agenda. One of the worst cases that come to mind is Piers Morgan, who never misses the opportunity to bash America's gun culture and shout down anybody that doesn't agree with him. Twice he has attacked Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, calling him an idiot and a liar. Morgan acted the same way toward economist John Lott Jr. when he pointed out that gun bans usually result in higher murder rates. Morgan responded by shouting down Lott and calling him a liar.

I have to congratulate Morgan. He has managed to surpass Rosie O'Donnell when it comes to tackiness. It's amazing how this man knows that he can't actually beat anybody like Pratt or Lott in an intelligent debate, so he has to act like a spoiled child. There was once a petition that called for Morgan's deportation. Personally I am actually against this for three reasons. For one thing it makes gun owners look like a bunch of intolerant bigots who don't respect free speech. Second, it shows that we actually give a damn what Morgan thinks. Why should we? He is not an American citizen, so he doesn't really get much say in our legislative process. The best reason not to deport him is that he has probably done more to advance the pro-Second Amendment cause then the NRA or GOA ever could. His childish meltdowns only show that he can't possibly win in a rational debate, which reflects badly on the anti-gun side. Besides, I have heard that Morgan's fellow countrymen of Merry Old England don't really want him back.

Once again we see the victim disarmament side fighting tooth and nail against having an armed presence on school campuses. Whether it's having armed guards or an armed staff, some anti-gun zealots have claimed that armed resistance is futile and they use the shootings at Columbine and Fort Hood as examples. In the case of the Columbine shootings, there was one police officer, who exchanged fire with the gunmen. The anti-self-defense side likes to gloat about the fact that one armed man wasn't able to stop a group of raving psychotics. Never mind that nobody on the pro-gun side has ever claimed that you are going to turn into John McClane from the Diehard movies, once you have access to a firearm. The officer probably did the best he could against a group of psychopathic nut jobs and probably allowed some of the students to get away by keeping them at bay. Besides, usually when we advocate having "armed staff members" or "armed guards" on school grounds, there is usually a plural at the end of these words. In case you fell asleep in second grade English, plural means more then one. As for Fort Hood, you would expect it to have an abundance of guns, since it is a military base. The problem was not the lack of guns, but the lack of people who were allowed to carry them. The only personnel allowed to carry on military bases are MP's who sadly ended up having a slower response time then the civilian police.

The same people who make these arguments also like to point out that there is no evidence of an armed citizen deterring any massacre. Obviously they make this claim while ignoring the shooting that took place at a mall in Portland, where an armed citizen was able to deter a massacre by simply brandishing his gun. When the gunman realized that he was about to face resistance, he choose to take his own life. A few years back there was another case where a principal was able to prevent a massacre by grabbing a gun from his car that was parked off of campus and holding the gunman until the police came. Those aren't even the best cases. The best case took place in Israel, where their schools were facing constant attacks by terrorists. This came to an end when the schools were allowed to have both armed teachers and armed guards. It's amazing how they have not had any school shootings since the 70's.

These days I find it very difficult to remain sympathetic to people on the anti-gun side. Not only do they keep using the same bad arguments, no matter how many times they fail, but they refuse to listen to any real solution. They have the nerve to say that we don't care about the safety of the children, but whenever we suggest having armed staff members or armed guards, they go into hysteria and make bad excuses. This proves that they aren't at all serious about the safety of the children. I say this to the anti-gun side: don't blame us "gun nuts" the next time one of those horrific massacres happens. We have given you solutions that have actually been proven to work, but you continue to belittle them. You would rather have people remain unarmed and defenseless in those hollow grounds that you like to call Gun-Free Zones. I won't go as far to blame the death of innocents on your side, but the blood sure as hell isn't on our hands.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: