We are now getting predictable squeaking about how maybe we need weapons screening and armed guards at movie theaters, as implied by the following:
The Colorado movie theater complex that was the scene of a gunman’s massacre didn’t have any uniformed security guards on duty the night of the shooting, even though other theaters operated by the same company did provide such protection
That theatre generally uses off-duty police as guards so they might be armed. But still, the shooter was in full body armor, was heavily armed, and came in a back door. He was ready. Security guards wouldn’t have been expecting what happened (who possibly could have been?) so he could have easily killed them first.
But I’m sure the military-security industry is pushing for weapons screening everywhere and lots more armed private guards as well. Feel safer? I don’t. The increased militarization of our society is ominous and Orwellian.
According to CDC, “In 2010, the five leading causes of death were: heart disease, cancer,
chronic lower respiratory diseases, stroke, and accidents.” There were 2.4 million deaths in the U.S. in 2010. There were 16,799 homicides, of which 11,493 were committed with firearms. That’s 0.4% of the deaths that occurred. Is that too high? Of course. Is that worth militarizing our nation and giving up our freedoms? Not in my book. Especially since there is doubt that gun laws even work.
California instituted its restrictive gun laws in 1989, yet homicide rates continued to climb, peaking in 1993 at 30% higher than the 1989 level. In 2010, 15.7% of the nation’s firearm homicides occurred in California, compared with California’s 11.9% of the U.S. population, despite its having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. That’s 32% higher than the U.S. average, despite gun restrictions. Are Californians that much more violent than other folks? Could it be that criminals don’t follow the law? Amazing!
And if you think we can eliminate guns through legislation and
enforcement, ask yourself how we’ve done at eliminating drugs through
legislation and enforcement. Drugs are even more plentiful today than
they were when the War on Drugs started. There are reasons for that,
some of which are as simple as capitalism and corruption, others are
more complex. And the analogy holds for guns: supply and demand don’t
just disappear because we want them to.
Assume for a moment that gun laws don’t work. Who, then, benefits from banning guns? Does this fall into the pattern of eliminating rights contained in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments? Habeus corpus and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty? If you were a government intent on eliminating these rights, wouldn’t you want the populace disarmed when you did it?
Just think: if gun owners are considered crazy wackos, no one would complain much when they get rounded up and taken away. There will probably be a few firefights along the way, too, just reinforcing how crazy those gun nuts really are. Result: a disarmed populace stripped of its only ultimate recourse against an oppressive government. But maybe I’m just being paranoid.
Imagine if the next time a drunk driver hit a minivan and killed 10 people, government tried to restrict your ability to drive.
The next time an artisan cheese maker in Washington state had a cheese the
government didn’t approve of, they started restricting your right to
choose local food nationwide. If you refused to use Monsanto GMO products, they
branded you as a revolutionary and allowed corporations to tie you up
with civil suits. Oh, wait: the latter two are reality already.
Welcome to the brave new world.
You cheesemakers are a very dangerous and potentially subversive breed indeed. Cheez-Whizz should be all anyone really needs.