Years ago I had this thought about gun bans and what would come next. Guns are a tool. They can be used as a weapon but it’s their use that defines them. People have been killed by the most innocent of objects, such as feather pillows. My thought is that after all guns are banned, what would replace them as the tool or object easiest to find and use for attacking or defending, for violence? I think it would be a baseball bat. So after guns, swords & knives are banned, there will be a call to ban bats. I would call this the “Louisville Slugger” law. It would restrict the use and carrying of bats and any objects similar in design that could be used for violence. Truck drivers carry a small bat (a thumper) to check tire pressure. It has also seen a lot of use against human heads. For some reason, dark & isolated loading docks, truck stops, etc. seem to be a good place to rob someone thieves believe will have hundreds of dollars cash on them. (gonna be tough on truck drivers after this law passes, but there’s always those pillows…kill ’em with kindness?)
Some will say this is a ridiculous stance to take, no one is calling for a bat ban. But how silly is it when you see other “Western” countries banning swords and bulletproof vests. (1) What is the reasoning there? How many people have been attacked by a bulletproof vest? Forced reliance on government for protection. Wanna bet you can be arrested for wearing a football helmet? And where guns are banned, knives seem to be the first choice as a substitute.(2)
Myself, I look for wisdom where I can find it. I may not “like” a person or more to point, a position they have taken on some issue. I recall Barkley saying some things I did not agree with, but his comment on this tragic event is spot on!
“There’s never a reason to hit a woman, touch a woman, or obviously kill a woman,” Barkley tells USA TODAY Sports.
“I hope people don’t (overemphasize) the gun situation. I’m very sensitive to domestic violence because I have a daughter (23-year-old Christiana), and that’s just one thing that I cannot accept in any shape or form whatsoever. It’s just a crazy situation.
“I don’t get into the gun stuff. Some guys have guns who go hunting. Where do we stop (the gun control) at? I’m not a hunter, but we can’t say people can’t have guns. … Let’s not make this thing about guns. Let’s make this about mistreating women. That’s unacceptable.” . . .(3)
I think the principal of personal rights is important. The right to self defense is not granted by government, but a natural right that no one should ever surrender. Building on this principal, I have the right to own and “bear” weapons suitable to my needs to defend myself, my family and property. Right now that includes various firearms. If I feel a mob attack or zombies are in my future, a flame thrower might be put in inventory. (note to homeland security, I have no such delusions that I am threatened by mobs or zombies, so no flamethrowers on order at this time) Were I in a war zone, say Israel, grenades would be a defensive weapon I would consider owning.
I do not think this is wide open, that anyone should be allowed to obtain any & all weapons they desire, such as nuclear or other WMD’s. But for out lefty naysayers. Banning guns is supposed to be to protect society as a whole. What if instead it results in more violence?(4) Also interesting is how we look at violent crime. Some 36,000 people are killed by firearms each year (number has been dropping). Violence is increasing, from 4.9 to 5.8 million instances of violence.(5) Using logic, not a knee-jerk emotional response might be helpful. Had this latest school shooter not had a gun, would it have prevented him from doing violence? Did he have a car he could have driven thru a crowded hallway? Gasoline? The tools are there, Pandora’s Box has long been opened. You cannot stop a tool from being used for evil by banning tools.