There are some gun rights advocates I hear from whenever they read about a citizen using a gun to thwart a criminal.
They love those stories. Some especially love it when the good guy has a concealed firearm permit. Such accounts prove that just about everyone who isn't a criminal should carry a gun, they tell me.
But none have contacted me about the arrest of concealed weapons permit holder Albert H. Rudolph III, who police say pulled a .45-caliber semi-automatic out of his shirt at Patrick's, a downtown Sarasota restaurant.
So for you, one anecdote about alleged misuse is enough to render everyone else who didn't behave irresponsibly defenseless? Because as we've seen time and again, only the authorities and their enforcers possess sufficient powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men to be trusted with a gun?
I've just provided you a link to thousands of examples of abuses by government authorities you so obviously hold in such esteem, Tom. And here's the thing--I don't even make an effort to look for these stories--and in fact, I don't comment on but a fraction of them since I could literally be doing nothing else. Just do a news search on the term "gun" every day and you'll be virtually tripping all over them.
You, in turn, give us one example, and suggest policy change affecting everyone to be the desired outcome. Fess up, Tom--don't you "especially love it when the good guy has a concealed firearm permit" and then abuses it? So why is it this is the first time you've had occasion to rant on the subject and you couldn't resist jumping on it? Could it be because it's so rare you've never had the opportunity to exploit it before--or is it just that you objective "authorized journalists" (another category I literally have to wade through every day) aren't doing your job and finding these stories for your readers?
If a fair-minded person were to look at the preponderance of problems reported by your own profession, Tom, which group do you think it would say poses the greatest danger to the public: the authorities you think are so much more trustworthy with guns than "ordinary" citizens, or concealed permit holders?
And as for guns and booze under the same roof? You might as well just cut to the chase and ban either firearms or alcohol, then (why not both?), because the home--you know, the place where most domestic violence situations and suicides occur--often has both present. And did you know that the suicide rate for law enforcement is about twice that of the general population, and that "Domestic violence is almost four times more likely to occur in police families"?
Don't believe me? Ask your colleagues---they're the ones filing stories on these numbers, and you guys always take pains to make sure what you're reporting is fair, balanced and accurate, right?
And incidentally: unless it had been discharged, it was a "cartridge" or a "round" that "fell to the floor," not a "bullet." Here's a resource you can consult if you're ever unsure about the difference in the future.
Liberal editorial writers. Is there anything they don't know?
10 comments:
"Liberal editorial writers. Is there anything they don't know?"
They don't seem to know the difference between facts and opinions.
One guy acts like a dumbass, but doesn't hurt anyone, and we're still all tarred-and-feathered.
Idiot.
My letter to Tom Lyons:
I don't carry Tom. I haven't carried a gun in years, so maybe my viewpoint will not be so easy to dismiss.
In you story you allude to the near panic and the fears of all those other people in the eatery. Well, as it was obvious this man was not going to harm enyone, why were they so fearful? Perhaps you should do an article on misplaced fear.
Would those same people have been tnat fearful if a uniformed police officer had entered? No? Does that not seem just a little wrong, on a moral as well as a logical level? It does to me.
I believe people who are frightened by other people exercising their rights should stay the Hell home. Period. If you cannot abide others who are doing no harm, but are fearful of what they maybe, might, possibly, perhaps will do, you do not belong anywhere but in your own home or an institution.
I am not defending the action of the gun wearer in your story because what he did was inconsiderate and thoughtless, but also harmless. That you can't see that and that you would call for punishing everyone else is reprehensible.
If you do not recognize your position for the danger to liberty that it is you are extremely ignorant of history and the fundamentals of a constitutional democratic republic. If you do, then you are just evil.
Apply the logic you used to your profession and you will see that you would soon have no right to print or disseminate your viewpoint. You guys get it wrong more than most, but the numbers of offenders is still relatively small, considering the size of the journalist pool. Would you advocate that you be sanctioned for the actions those that cause harm because they do not do research, plagiarize, invent Pulitzer Prize winning stories told as fact and have caused suicides due to irresponsible posting of so-called news items? If you would not, then you are a hypocrite.
You cannot play both sides and cherrypick where principle makes an exception. You may not have learned that, but at your age you should have. Even if you weren't taught so by your parents, you have no excuse not to see it now.
Meant every word,
(my signature)
Well...we all know what happened back in the day when the gov't tried to ban alchohol,right?(Prohibition?) And we've seen what THAT group that was formed to fight prohibition turned into now,right? Will they never learn?!?!
My letter to Tom Lyons:
Good afternoon Tom -
I enjoyed reading your column this afternoon and look forward to the logical follow-up. If concealed-carry rights should be further restricted because of Albert H. Rudolph III's irresponsible behavior, then I can't wait to read about the restrictions you'll advocate for city/state/federal police, ATF agents, FBI agents, Federal Marshals, etc. I see daily accounts of law enforcement officers acting irresponsibly with their tax-payer-funded weapons with very few repercussions (if any), I'm assuming you'll be advocating massive restrictions on their behavior as well.
If you'd like, I'd be happy to send those constant and alarming law-enforcement violations. Your columns covering those will be especially appreciated as that class of perpetrators are often shielded from taking responsibility. Your coverage and the resulting public scrutiny will help protect us all.
Thanks again
"Liberal editorial writers. Is there anything they know?" There. I fixed it for you. :)
All thses years of CCW behind us and this is all they could dig up?
No mass shootings at the Walmart return counter,no firefights at stoplights between CCW holders, not even a mass extermination of all prom dates who return daughters passed midnight looking a bit disheveled.
If it made the news every time a cop showed up for duty, after a few too many, there would be a paper and ink shortage.
As a person that sometimes drinks and sometimes is in possession of firearms, but does not use one in conjunction with the other if at all avoidable, I resent you sullying the name "Tom".
My primary problem with all of these issues are the double standards. The same personal actions that (as a citizen) risk jail time, loss of rights, financial impacts, etc, wouldn't apply if I was on the LEO payroll. That is the only differentiator.
Markie Marxist sez: "First we ban gun owners from bars. Then we ban them from restaurants that serve liquor. Then we ban them from supermarkets that sell beer. Then we hope they starve to death, and if they don't, then we just make it illegal to feed them."
Post a Comment