Well, that's no surprise. Ron Paul is the hero of those who hate to be told what to do and what they can't do. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, the only thing that matters is the authority demanding obedience must be resisted.Texas Congressman and GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul continues to champion constitutional rights. His latest endeavor is a bill that would abolish “gun-free zones,” ultimately permitting teachers to carry firearms on school grounds. Predictably, anti-gun groups are calling the legislation “extremist.”
The most fascinating part of the article, biased as it is with the only reference to the opposition being that they find it "extremist," is the incredible spin job that Gottlieb does. Get a load of this history lesson.
The pro-gun crowd are the first to cry that correlation does not equal causation, yet they'd flock around in support of their lawyer-hero Alan Gottlieb when he says nonsense like this.Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said that despite the intentions of the School Zones Act, it ultimately created “target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building.”
"This sort of thing didn't happen before the advent of gun-free school zone laws," Gottlieb said. "You never saw such an outrage in the days when high schools typically had rifle teams, and – particularly in the West – where it was common in the fall to find both teachers and students with hunting rifles or shotguns locked in their cars.”
I suppose the idea is the REASON there were no mass shootings at schools in the good old days is BECAUSE folks had guns. Does that make sense to you? Why didn't that work in Akron Ohio the other day, or in Grand Prarie Texas last month? Those are both fairly rich gun environments.
Isn't it true that the phenomenon of mass shootings is a fairly recent one? There were examples years ago, but they were few and far between. Nowadays, thanks to the ever-increasing gun availability and lax gun regulations, they are anything but few and far between.
What's your opinion? Do you believe that basic premise that "monsters" choose gun-free target-rich environments for their massacres? Do you like the basic idea of arming more of the good guys in order to offset the increasing numbers of bad guys with guns?
Please tell us what you think? Leave a comment.
"Isn't it true that the phenomenon of mass shootings is a fairly recent one? There were examples years ago, but they were few and far between. Nowadays, thanks to the ever-increasing gun availability and lax gun regulations, they are anything but few and far between."
ReplyDeleteActually, I do not think gun availability builds these monsters and has no direct cause and effect on mass shootings. However, if you do believe that, you would have it very backwards. We have no school shootings and very few mass shootings recorded before the gun control act of 1968 that established gun control nationwide for the first time since the NFA of 1934. Prior to 1968, anyone of any age could walk into any hardware store, gun store or even use a mail order catalog to gt any gun they wished. There was no such thing as a form 24473 or a FFL before then. So, if gun availability is a factor, why were the mass murders and school shootings unheard of before then?
"What's your opinion? Do you believe that basic premise that "monsters" choose gun-free target-rich environments for their massacres?"
Yes, it is fact that they do, not a theory.
"Do you like the basic idea of arming more of the good guys in order to offset the increasing numbers of bad guys with guns?"
Yes. Almost all active shooters are stopped by citizens o off duty or random police on the scene when it happened.
Since you like statistics, here is one for you: Since 1998, the number of mass shootings stopped by law enforcement dispatched after receiving a call: ZERO.
Schools aren't really gun free zones anymore. I live in a realatively prosperous middle-class area and the schools pay for full-time, armed, police protection for middle and high schools. This is despite controlled access to the building and other, more passive, safety measures. I like that there is a trained, armed individual at my kid's school. Having it be a cop (and only that one cop) has some advantage (an expectation that he will intervene should there be a problem, training/knowledge of the facility) and some disadvantage (in a planned attack the 1st couple of victims are screwed even if they knew they were likely a target). I'd prefer that anyone qualified was able to decide on the capabilities that they needed for their own safety but overall I think that it's a much better policy than depending on a sign to keep out a killer.
ReplyDeleteSchools (and many other gun free zones) are targets. I don't think that they are chosen simply because the people there are unarmed though. Schools provide a dense grouping of people to kill/terrorize if that's the goal. Those people are children, providing an increased emotional responce to their harm. Family problems have also caused parents to behave violently and school is one of the places that they can be sure to find their child. Lots of advantages to several types of nutjobs in attacking a school. Other GFZs (stadiums, government facilities, workplaces) have similar attributes.
I can't think of an example where a killer just "wanted to kill a bunch of people", they've all had some reason (in their own mind) to kill. Although avoiding the problem of people shooting back might be nice for a mass murderer I don't think that they look for that feature specifically. They'll go kill their family/political opponents/hated race/sexual deviate or whatever their particular insanity is where they can find them. And that is frequently in a gun free zone (school, work, gathering place).
He might just get my vote after all
ReplyDelete"Actually, I do not think" true, so far--oh, but there's more (sigh!)--"gun availability builds these monsters and has no direct cause and effect on mass shootings.".
ReplyDeleteWell, gunz certainly don't make people BECOME crazed killers. But, gunz, particularly gunz that are designed to knock down something bigger than a squirrel, have high magazine capacities or are easily and swiftly reloadable DO make it easier for them to become mass murdering crazed killers.
"We have no school shootings and very few mass shootings recorded before the gun control act of 1968 that established gun control nationwide for the first time since the NFA of 1934."
I'm sure there ARE citations for that assertion but I will sorta take your word for it.
You cite the firearms act of 1968 as a watershed of sorts in the mass shooting style of mayhem. Prior to that time there were millions of bolt action/semi-auto hunting rifles* and breech loading, pump or semi-automatic shotguns in use and millions of them left unsecured and loaded in the front hall, coat closet, cellar or garage workshop or gunrack of many an american home. Oddly, none of those weapons figure prominently in the spate of mass murder shooting incidents over the last decade or so. Yes, shotguns are used, most of the ones I've seen in "evidence photos" are pisto grip models, with folding stocks if they have one at all--not a hunter's weapon. Most shootings are carried out by shooters with semi-automatic handguns and semi-auto "hunting" rifles that bear at least a strong superficial resemblance to military weapons such as the M-16 or AK-47--feel free to furnish information proving I'm wrong on this.
You, in a manner similar to lots of gunloonz and reichwingers like to point to correlation and say that it IS causation. Not true, but the NRA and FuckTheNew'sCorpse can tell you guys damned near anything and have you believing it before they go to the "Buy Gold, NOW!" scamercial.
* We, the anti-assholezwitgunz folks are often castigated for calling weapons of various types "automatics" when as every LAGO knows they are SEMI-AUTOMATIC YOU FUCKING MORON ANTI-GUNZASSHOLES!! 11TY1!!!
That's why I find this link:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=1274150153866862965
sooooo snarklicious!
I don't say there are more mass shootings today BECAUSE there are more guns. And by the same token, Gottlieb can't claim there used to be none becasue there were guns there.
ReplyDelete