Recently 4 Americans, a Brit and gentlemen thwarted a disaster on a French train. The Americans were Spencer Stone (airman first class), Alek Skarlatos (specialist in the Oregon National Guard), Anthony Sadler, and Mark Moogalian (dual French-American citizen.) The Brit was Chris Norman and the Frenchman is unidentified at this time. I applaud these gentlemen. (see Paris Press Conference for their press conference.)
In his post on Facebook, Robert Reich (see Robert Reich Posting) posted this:
In these dog-days of summer — when headlines are filled with the narcissistic bloviations of Donald Trump, the nation is debating “anchor babies,” and topless women are on parade in Times Square — a simple tale of heroism by a three young Americans on a train in Europe captures our imagination and our hearts. They were just doing the decent thing, and with great courage. They are the America we believe in, and the America we want the rest of the world to see — strong, smart, brave, and generous. I think the rest of the world wants to see that America, too. Your view?
I responded with this post with the following:
“and they were not armed to the teeth as the NRA claims they would have to be to do what they did.”
Following this post I have received nearly 3,000 “likes” (the count is continuing at a rapid pace). However, receiving a “like” was not my point or a personal need. My point is that we cannot solve violence with violence. One lady, in response to my post on facebook, said “Ask people in the theaters how deadly it can be with a gun far away.” This response is, in my opinion, exactly the problem. How many more would have died if there was a “shoot ’em up” in those theaters. The statistics are very clear that more guns causes more deaths. This blog post is not intended to be a treatise on gun control with substantiating statical back-up. I might do that in the future but there are plenty of folks who are fighting for gun control. See, for example, this article in Mother Jones. Moms Demand Action is one such activist group that is at the forefront of trying to correct the imbalance in regulation of guns and the insanity of not requiring background checks. From the Moms Demand Action website: An NRA-backed amendment to the 1993 Brady Bill created a loophole that—over the last five years—has allowed more than 15,000 gun sales to dangerous people because a background check could not be completed within the three-day period required by the law.
It has been fascinating to follow the replies to my posting. The basically fall into two camps: those that agree and those who continue to believe guns are essential. The thrust of the latter argument is that if guns are regulated (as required in the Second Amendment of the constitution), then only the bad guys will have guns. This is, in my opinion, a very warped way of correcting the problem. This is basically saying: We surrender. Let’s all be armed to the teeth and be ready to shoot ’em up at every threatening situation.
I certainly understand this emotional and irrational stance. I just cannot buy the logic. The unintentional and by-stander deaths are on the rise. The number of people who are armed is rising. The open carry laws are creating unhealthy and scary situations in churches, schools, etc. Even today we read that a Florida shooting range will now be allowed to sell alcohol. I could go on.
Let’s think this through to its logical conclusion: If every person on the planet was armed, what would happen? If no one on the planet had a gun, what would happen? I know that my blog will not change the mind of gun advocates. Sadly, I believe that the NRA has been able to conflate gun ownership with “freedom.” In many public forums, you can feel the distrust of government and the hatred towards anyone (especially Barrack Obama) who messes with their right to “bear arms”. This is despite the fact that the second amendment states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Obviously a lot of people leave out the first part of the sentence: A well regulated militia. This would not support their argument. So the debate will continue until more people die…
Sadly, I don’t think the debate will never end as long as guns are accessible to people with ill intent, and morons who have ‘accidents.’
The bodies will continue to pile up and people will continue to arm themselves. If there is a breaking point it is a long way off. There are plenty who don’t even believe these shootings are happening. WND and other sites promote the ‘false flag’ theories almost as soon as these shootings happen.
Happened again today. A friend of mine pointed out that the false flaggers are already attaching their conspiracy theories to the most recent shooting in Virginia.
I don’t think this is going to end. Especially as long as Americans refuse statistical realities in preference of irrational fear.