And so, out of respect for the dead and injured, who were killed by a handgun and a shotgun, the Interior Department has —what? Changed its mind? Thought better of its plans? No. It has merely postponed its announcement until next week.
I repeat: How is mandating people be disarmed, what Machiavelli called "contemptible," respectful?
And note the assumption--if it's worse than usual, per The (dwindling) Times there will never be a good day.
Some of the comments are incredibly ignorant--all the more obnoxious because they are written with such unmerited certainty. If you have a moment, you may want to go over there and inject some sense into things.
UPDATE: Well, my comment, put in at the time of this post, still isn't there. No obscenities or personal attacks. Guess they don't want their worldview challenged too strongly.
6 comments:
I had a moment, so I posted some common sense. It's awaiting "approval."
Same here, let's see if my opinion is on topic enough for the Paper of Record.
Anyway, off to the range.
I commented that it's okay to pre-stage fire fighting equipment in schools, even though teachers and students aren't trained as firefighters, it's okay to put Automatic External Defibrillators in public places even though very few of us are trained Paramedics, but it's not okay to have the equipment on hand to prevent a massacre?
So much for education being the answer.
Haven't seen that posted yet, either.
I commented, but it's still not posted.
Here it is:
It's apparent from some of the above comments that people simply don't trust other people with tools.
It's amazing that folks would even travel in the cars to visit the various National Parks. If one would get nervous "tent camping" in a park, simply because another camper had a gun, how would you trust that you could even arrive safely since every one else is driving a car is a moron?
The fact that someone has a gun in their possession doesn't mean that they will use it. Target shooting would not be permitted.
As for the argument that people will "poach" in these parks if they are allowed to carry, that's just silly. That's like saying that people will poach during hunting season with the game checks and everything that goes along with it.
The mail reason to have a handgun in a park is to discourage two legged predators. I'd choose pepper spray to discourage a bear before I would kill one. But there are handguns that are potent enough to stop a bear, and people actually hunt bears with handguns.
When the first CCW laws were passed, people cried about the carnage that was going to occur "in the streets." That never happened.
As to people "feeling as safe" as they do at home - that's simply a feeling. It has nothing to do with reality. On one hand, the people who now "feel safe" due to a proscription on gun in parks are fearful of law-abiding citizens who would carry a gun. But they have no fear of the people who are armed and who are disobeying the laws - you know - criminals. Why is that? Is that rational thought?
All the people in other "gun free" zones who have been injured and killed by criminals "felt safe" before they saw that an armed killer was in their midst, and they had no similar tool with which to defend themselves.
I am disabled, and not readily able to fend off a two-legged predator with feet and fists. I won't travel into areas in which I am prevented from defending my family.
If no one assaults me or my wife, they will never know that I, and my wife, are armed.
All this law does is to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun in their possession. It does nothing about the goblins who disobey the laws and carry guns for the purpose of harming others. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
It's inconceivable to me that someone would actually write: "are you thinking of shooting it out with campers and hikers" to the people who won't carry a gun unless it's permitted by law. If someone was actually going to do that, why would they let the law get in their way? It's kinda like asserting that this country has no drug problems because drugs are not legal. Again, that type of "logic" is just silly.
Ned
Heh, they skipped mine. I wonder why?
Peter, I'll just correct that typo in your post and then reuse it:
I can only surmise that it is safe to advocate these “ban the ownership and carrying of weapons” positions when one lives far from the places where they take effect.
Exactly right, Peter. Many of the leading disarmers live in gated communities, or make their proclamations while flanked by armed security guards -- with weapons not "allowed" the general public or carrying in areas where prohibited. (In the lobby of the New York Times Building, for example.)
I think the salient point here is that the carrying of weapons was banned on campus. The EDITORIAL BOARD ought to be /ashamed/ parading around the corpses of the NIU deceased to further justify their bigotry against armed Citizens. What is that, aversion therapy? "Here, look at this corpse- now look at this gun! Gun bad, gun owner bad!"
David's is up there as of last night. Mine still is not. And I was nice!
For a change...
Post a Comment