As it happens whenever some whack job goes on a killing spree, the liberal left almost always goes on the attack of guns, gun control, and gun ownership. The latest tragedy is no different and the left is going on the attack.
It's the guns fault!
Damn those assault rifles!!
Now I sound like one of those extreme conservatives, don't I? Well, the truth is that I tend to fall on the more liberal side of the political arena, but this is one issue that I just don't agree with my fellow liberals on.
I was listening to one of my favorite radio stations, Chicago's Progressive Talk 99.9 on the way home the other day and my blood was boiling as a result. I almost considered calling in, but I pulled into the driveway too soon. The host of this particular show made it a point to list the guns the shooter used in this horrific attack.
He felt it so important to specify and emphasize that he carried a couple of Glock handguns, a Remington shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson rifle - He placed strong, repeated, and deliberate emphasis on the manufacturers of the weapons. It was blatant innuendo that clearly tried to place blame on those manufacturers for producing the weapon.
After this specific inventory of weapons was read, he follows up with the question asked with a tone of disbelief, "Why does ANYBODY need these guns?" - note the strong emphasis on the word anybody.
A caller comes on, supports this question, and then goes on to talk about how shocked he is that anybody would have guns likes this. He then goes on to emphatically question the system, "How could a person like this buy a gun; let alone all of these guns?"
Come on people, quit being so damn naive and absurd. Let's look at this logically and quit blaming things that aren't to be blamed. All you are doing is creating a mass hysteria based on ignorance and that is very dangerous.
First, Mr. Radio Host - The fact that the shooter had a Glock handgun doesn't matter one bit. It's not Glock's fault. It's not Remington's fault. It's not Smith & Wesson's fault. Quit blaming these companies for making a product that is used to protect your rights and freedom that give your pretentious self the right to complain about them in the first place.
And to answer your question, people "need" those guns for a million different reasons. Some people hunt. Some people shoot for sport. Some people like to feel protected against threats that are stronger than they are. Unfortunately, some people buy them to harm others, but that's not the guns fault.
As for you Mr. Radio caller - You apparently have no realistic perception of intrusion vs freedom. This guy legally purchased these guns at extremely well established and licensed dealers. How do you expect these retailers to know what this guy wanted to do? What level of gun gun control or background check do you feel would have been appropriate? The shooter had a squeaky clean background with exception of a speeding ticket I believe. There was no indication that he would be a threat to anybody.
Do you suggest that every person who wants to buy a gun be subject to a background investigation that allows the government to question neighbors, friends, and relatives? Do you think that a visit to the home of the intended purchaser is realistic, feasible, or fair? I sure don't, but let's pretend for a second that it was.
Now what? Pretend for a second that a much more costly and intrusive search somehow tells us the future and reveals that this guy wants to buy the gun to kill someone. As a result, the retailers don't sell the guy a gun. Is that going to prevent the tragedy?
Your response might be that it probably wouldn't have because there are so many illegal guns on the street and he probably would have just bought them illegally. We need to get rid of ALL guns!!
Fine - let's pretend that you have your way and all guns were eradicated from the world. That's right, not one single gun exists anywhere in the world - would this tragedy have been prevented?
The answer to that is no and that is the point that you, my fellow liberals, need to realize. If it wasn't guns, it would have been something else; maybe a pipe bomb? Do we take your same "blame the weapon" stance then? Do we ban all galvanized pipe? There goes internal plumbing.
If we took this mentality of yours that it's the guns fault, it would inevitably have to be applied to all things that have ever been used by one human being to harm or kill another human being because you are so insistent on blaming the inanimate object instead of blaming the monster that chose to use the weapon.
Bricks, knives, gravity, fertilizer, miscellaneous household chemicals.....all have been used to kill people so they must be banned!!
Wait a second.....
Is there anything that hasn't been used to hurt another? What about puppies? Since this is a fishing blog, what about fishing line? I'm willing to bet that someone has been strangled by fishing line at some point in time.
Hmm...so pretty much, we would live in a world with nothing except for other people. But wait...people have used bare hands to kill another person; should we ban people, too?
Once again, you all need to stop blaming the tool that was used and blame the person that used the tool. That's it...the person is the ONLY thing that can be blamed for a tragedy like this.
Not to be cliche', but guns don't kill people. People kill people.