PDA

View Full Version : Violent Shootings and the 2A Rights Movement


chiselchst
02-28-2012, 6:44 PM
(Just some thoughts from a concerned 2A rights supporter, but one that is NOT plugged in to the current strategies or efforts regarding our best path forward)

I am personally outraged and upset when I see violent shootings in the news, locally or Nationally. I am upset due to the tragic effects of such, but as an 2A rights advocate, I am also upset due to the possible negative impact I fear they might have on our efforts and work going forward.

So I began thinking when I came home from work the other morning, and I saw the initial coverage of the shooting at an Ohio High School on the National news, with live aerial shots of the school. Now granted, this was an extremely tragic event, no doubt. Very sad for very many. My heart goes out those effected. But the coverage of these types of shootings, IMHO, is over blown in this respect; many more school kids die in auto accidents, drug/alcohol overdoses, and by various other causes, yet shootings spark such an outrage, and vast media coverage. The media will not change, and I personally feel any effort to persuade them to change is a waste of time. So, our options seem limited, IMHO.

I was trying to think if there could be a positive us gunnies might consider, to try and get in front of this type of stuff. The other option is to just ignore it all (which I'm feeling is the safest?). My thoughts were our options might look something like this:

a) Don't address the issue, nothing good can come from it. Respectfully show compassion, and leave it at that. Support those in their mourning.

b) Get out in front of this, by stepping up and promoting (or offering) gun safety/legal training and gun ownership information re; gun storage laws, safe methods to secure residential weapons, etc. Move in to the political arena with *constructive, helpful support*. "Joining the battle to fighting this type of gun violence". Get involved...

c) Address it from a (seemingly cold side?) regarding stats, and how many firearms are used safely every day, and how XX,XXX of children are victims of "Y" each year, and THAT needs to be addressed first. Victims of shootings are statistically negligible compared to more "serious" concerns regarding our youth that need to be addressed immediately.

d) Contribute your own idea here.

Should I have even posted this? Is the issue even worth discussing?

My opinion, worth what you paid for it...

SilverTauron
02-28-2012, 7:06 PM
"Better to keep silent and to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"-Abraham Lincoln.

With a rabidly anti-gun media calling the shots,we will look bad no matter what. It is thus wise to give such people as little material to work with as possible. The more fabrications and omissions the mainstream media generates, the better our side is supported.

speedrrracer
02-28-2012, 7:21 PM
In a tragedy of any kind, stepping in with some kind of political agenda is callous and a sure sign of douchebaggery.

Support the victims / families as best one can, and leave one's desire to further personal agendas out of it, not because it will backfire massively (which it will) but because it's not the place nor the time for such things.

IVC
02-28-2012, 7:27 PM
The angle I find working with all but most rabid anti gunners is to point out the following:

The school was already a complete no-gun zone.
There was an additional 1,000 feet "safety no-gun zone" around it.
Not a single law-abiding student or faculty possessed a gun on the premises.
They all called police and waited.
This is exactly what the ultimate vision of the safe environment is from the anti 2nd amendment groups.

So, the question I ask them is how come there were still innocent people killed when not some, but all utopian restrictions were in place at the school.

Then comes the usual "doh, because gunman wasn't going to obey these restrictions", which leads to the final "you wouldn't be saying that if guns are outlawed only the outlaws would have them, would you?" Pretty hard to get out of that one now...

selfshrevident
02-28-2012, 7:50 PM
read one of John Lott's books about gun bias in the media and you will find out so much about all the BS that goes on today with reporting/journalism.

chiselchst
02-28-2012, 8:25 PM
The angle I find working with all but most rabid anti gunners is to point out the following:

The school was already a complete no-gun zone.
There was an additional 1,000 feet "safety no-gun zone" around it.
Not a single law-abiding student or faculty possessed a gun on the premises.
They all called police and waited.
This is exactly what the ultimate vision of the safe environment is from the anti 2nd amendment groups.

So, the question I ask them is how come there were still innocent people killed when not some, but all utopian restrictions were in place at the school.

Then comes the usual "doh, because gunman wasn't going to obey these restrictions", which leads to the final "you wouldn't be saying that if guns are outlawed only the outlaws would have them, would you?" Pretty hard to get out of that one now...

Extremely well made point, IMHO...

wayneinFL
02-28-2012, 8:25 PM
One of the best articles I've ever seen for dealing with the anti-gun mentality.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

In a tragedy of any kind, stepping in with some kind of political agenda is callous and a sure sign of douchebaggery.

Yup. See the Brady Campaign if you have any doubt.

ElvenSoul
02-28-2012, 8:39 PM
I have said for years we just need to ship the Anti Gunners off to a Chelsea vs Manchester Game. Never saw so much random violence and improvised weapons in my life!

radioman
02-29-2012, 1:07 AM
One of the best articles I've ever seen for dealing with the anti-gun mentality.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm



Yup. See the Brady Campaign if you have any doubt.

that was a good read, thank you.

bcj128
02-29-2012, 7:05 AM
How about condemning it as something we find abhorrent and wrong, and this is NOT what guns are intended for. This is the MISUSE if a firearm, and should be dealt with extreme harshness as the ABUSE of a civil right.

We should be leading the charge to bring the shooter to justice, respectfully give our condolences, and when asked (or confronted), give a compassionate, but well reasoned argument for our position.

You can't defend gun rights very well in the wake of this. No one will listen, just grieve with them. When the inevitable gun control argument comes up, we need to engage the other side, agree to good ideas, help them to see the folly of the bad.

In the end, someone is going to ask, where he got the gun. That is going to be the biggest bone of contention. If I was one of the parents of the kids that was hurt or killed that's what I'd want to know.

CDFingers
02-29-2012, 7:37 AM
Sure, it's worth discussing.

Old media saying: "If it bleeds, it leads." Unfortunate but true.

As regards the 2A, naturally some will call for more laws. However in many cases we see that the existing laws were not followed. So that is that.

The best approach is to push for the correct deterrent: allow more citizens to carry.

Now, the ninth and tenth amendments being what they are, and McDonald being what it is (P or I clause/equal protection clause), we may have to swallow that, eventually, states may be able to prohibit one, but not both, types of carry: open/concealed--I think counties will have to bow to state power. To prohibit both violates the infringement clause of the 2A and is clearly unconstitutional. To decide how the 9th and 10th affect this, many lawyers will have to make pots of money first.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
02-29-2012, 7:48 AM
In the end, someone is going to ask, where he got the gun. That is going to be the biggest bone of contention. If I was one of the parents of the kids that was hurt or killed that's what I'd want to know.

The problem with the anti-gun sentiment is that its an argument founded on emotion, specifically fear of the potential abuse of a firearm bordering on a psychological phobia.

We on the side of facts and history are attempting to attack a problem of fear with facts.One does not cure a fear of heights by quoting physics equations to someone scared of a tall building, and a person who is scared to fly will hardly be comforted by factual statistics proving air travel to be the safest means of travel possible today.

The way to combat this phobia is to counter emotion with emotion. A lot of people in America feel that firearms are a dangerous threat to the security of an individual, and that thus outlawing their sale, manufacture, and possession should be a goal to achieve regardless of what any law says. That is why quoting the 2nd Amendment goes nowhere with people of this emotional perspective, as they feel the need to disarm America supersedes the laws under which America was created. Call it a practical realization of the philosophy of the means justifying the ends.

We must reassure America that indeed firearms are NOT the problem, and that legal gun ownership by responsible adults should be encouraged. This is a process that won't happen overnight, and indeed can't be done instantly.Don't expect help from the press either in this regard, as major news outlets get ten times more mileage of a story of firearm negligence & tragedy than any positive instance of legal gun use. It happens every day, but such tales will never be told out of a need for sensationalist press. There is nothing sensationalist about a responsible gun owner who never abuses his or her right.

We must be the change we wish to see, to quote a corny line. When non-gun people see that people who strap on Glocks are no different than they are,they will realize the truth with their own two eyes.

Insofar as the predictable crusade for more gun control,I hope the leftists in our government sing loud and clear their intentions for more laws, for the louder they wail the clearer their foolishness will be to people on the fence.

zhyla
02-29-2012, 7:52 AM
I think it's pretty disgusting to use these incidents as an opportunity to push a political agenda, even if it's an agenda I agree with.

sanjosebmx
02-29-2012, 7:55 AM
The angle I find working with all but most rabid anti gunners is to point out the following:

The school was already a complete no-gun zone.
There was an additional 1,000 feet "safety no-gun zone" around it.
Not a single law-abiding student or faculty possessed a gun on the premises.
They all called police and waited.
This is exactly what the ultimate vision of the safe environment is from the anti 2nd amendment groups.

So, the question I ask them is how come there were still innocent people killed when not some, but all utopian restrictions were in place at the school.

Then comes the usual "doh, because gunman wasn't going to obey these restrictions", which leads to the final "you wouldn't be saying that if guns are outlawed only the outlaws would have them, would you?" Pretty hard to get out of that one now...

The problem is, the liberals rarely come to this (correct) conclusion. They just don't think like (we) do.

bcj128
02-29-2012, 8:21 AM
The problem is, the liberals rarely come to this (correct) conclusion. They just don't think like (we) do.

To play devil's advocate...and I'm doing just that... How do we know our conclusion is correct.

When we start off our argument like that, we come with the foregone conclusions...not saying we didn't get there from years of research, experience, etc.

The facts and history are what they are. The reasons for the second amendment are what they are. (Many of the writings at the time of the revolution document them well...)

Sometimes it's good to pull out the dusty chest in the attic that holds the reasons why we believe in something like the second amendment and dust it off, look it over, and share it. It's education that we have to do, because the mass media won't do it.

Now isn't the time, let the families grieve. But when it is time, we still need to keep the discussion going.

IVC
02-29-2012, 9:12 AM
To play devil's advocate...and I'm doing just that... How do we know our conclusion is correct.

We don't. But these days we don't have to. The boot is on the proverbial other foot now.

What happened with the recent SCOTUS rulings is akin to changing from "guilty until proven innocent" to "innocent until proven guilty". The numbers don't have to justify our position any more - the antis have to prove their point. And what has been happening in, e.g., Chicago (completely gun-free zone per their desires for 30 years) is going to make any proof very difficult. It's like a science experiment: once you do it and it fails, it's hard to fit the facts.

However, it takes time to get these issues straightened out. The courts will have to change their reasoning and that doesn't happen over night.