Friday, April 30, 2010
What it is:In the news: Earlier this month, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) signed legislation allowing “concealed carry permit holders to bring loaded handguns” into establishments that serve alcohol. The law allows permit holders to carry guns in restaurants, “as long as the holders do not consume alcohol.” This gun stuff is a fetish, pure and simple. What I find interesting is that these folks can’t rest until they can bring their guns anywhere, even to places that were deemed off-limits until recently: churches national parks bars airports I’m pretty sure that hospital delivery rooms would prefer not to have someone show up packing heat, but if there was a prohibition of such action, the gun fanatics would raise holy hell until they could bring their pistol or rifle in with them. Assertively going to location X with your gun strikes me as analogous to mammals pissing to mark their territory. Yup, that’s exactly what it is. (I know the pistol/penis parallel has been discussed before, and sometimes it’s overdone, but in this case – “territory marking” – it really fits.)
posted by Quiddity at 4/30/2010 08:30:00 PM
8 comments
Remember this story --
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
A nutjob went into a church filled with 7,000 people with "an assault rifle and two handguns, and ... as many as 1,000 rounds of ammunition."
yet only managed to kill two people.
Why?
Because an armed church volunteer shot him dead.
Too bad there weren't any "gun nuts" in the classes at Virginia Tech. Funny how when deranged people plan massacres, they pick "gun free zones" to do it.
I wonder why.
Step 1. Post story about gun killing a gun nut.
Step 2. Post story about gun not killing a gun nut in time.
Step 3. Forget about step 1 and say that step 2 is how it always happens.
*Insert head-slap*
Step 4. Forget to mention the constant stream of gun violence that might be alleviated if there weren't so many guns everywhere.
*Insert head-slap*
tick, tick, tick, tick...
The constant stream of gun violence could also alleviated if we only had laser-shooting unicorns that would pop up and blast the gunmen.
Since we don't have any laser-shooting unicorns, we have to make do with armed citizens. And don't even go on about the police. When seconds count, they are minutes away.
So the solution to gun violence (from armed citizens) is to have more armed citizens? I think it's at least as safe to assume that there are plenty of people who would be committing acts of gun violence but simply lack the gun at hand. I'm not talking about a Virginia Tech or a Columbine, but the simpler things, like a bar brawl. For the moment, it's mostly carried out by unarmed citizens, but a drunken brawl by armed citizens is likely much more lethal.
I live in a city where there's a fair deal of gun violence (it's a banner weekend when there isn't a gun murder); the last thing those neighborhoods need is more guns. Adding more would simply increase the number of bullets flying and the casualties from 2 dead to 3 dead and 5 wounded.
I'm not talking about a Virginia Tech or a Columbine, but the simpler things, like a bar brawl.
I'm most worried about some prick or prick-ette with a gun on the highway. I run into lots of asshole drivers every day; god help me if they're armed.
This is really a hot-button topic, but I'd like to point out that cooler heads prevail in the states that are serious about May Issue laws. When those citizens who are not crazy, nor criminals, nor druggies, nor any of a whole raft of other restrictions go through a long and costly training regimen to acquire a concealed carry permit then they are generally trustworthy about the responsibility to carry a potentially deadly weapon among their fellow citizens. Branding such people as "gun nuts" or other convenient labels ignores the reason they go through all the trouble to acquire a CCW permit in the first place.
Please, folk. Use some caution before dumping such concerned members of society in with the fringe.
It's often observed that those who crave power the most are those who should be entrusted with it the least.
If someone is so intent on getting a concealed carry permit as to go through that "long and costly" process, I'd personally be much more concerned, not less, about why they wanted it.
|
