I am in the middle of asking four (4) questions about the weakness of the gun control argument. I believe I have made it clear that something must be done, but a knee-jerk reaction is out of order. The issue is too serious to think that a simple law here or finger-pointing there will solve anything. Rather, they would make matters worse.
You may have other questions. If nothing else, these can at least stimulate a rational discussion, something that's sadly lacking.
Here are the other two:
3. Is the government to blame for this mess?
I suppose I am consistent here with my anti-socialist principles, namely, "is the government be responsible for everything in our lives?" We have handed over far too much power and control as it is. The Government certainly doesn't need more.
I have not yet made the connection between what happened in Florida (and elsewhere) and the government. I've even read where President Trump has been held responsible for the shooting. Really? That's how far this socialistic mindset has poisoned our culture.
Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility? We can't continue to play this "blame game." Whenever anything goes wrong, we blame others. We refuse to take responsibility for ourselves.
We blame our parents, teachers, neighbours, employers, and the church. We throw in the excuse of gender, race, ethnicity, finances, and even the devil. Blaming the government, then, is a mere extension of that faulty thinking.
4. Is there any connection between a well-armed populace and the crime rate?
My research is a little inconclusive at this point, so I won't go too far out on a limb. Logically speaking, of course, if any given homeowner, consumer, or student is known to have a concealed weapon, that should be deterrent for any vandal, burglar or mugger to do some serious damage.
I have read so many accounts where the homeowner has simply defended his "castle" by shooting over (or at) the perp, sending him on his way, with a parting shot (pun intended).. I have read other accounts where the homeowner wasn't armed and the results were tragic.
And we don't want anymore tragedies, do we?
So, in that sense, we don't need stats to show the benefits of being an armed homeowner—we need just police reports.
Even as I write there is an ongoing situation in Okotoks, whereby a rancher shot at a couple of thieves on his his property. There was a similar account a few years ago in Taber. They both could have ended up much differently, with some blood being spilled unnecessarily—and I mean the innocent property owner's blood.
As I windup this discussion, I certainly hope you will agree with the following points: a. this indiscriminate bloodbath needs to stop...now; b. all innocent lives must be protected; c. weapons must not fall into irresponsible hands; and
d. every hint, notice, joke, even rumour of killing must be taken seriously and responded to immediately.
I circle back to something I mentioned a couple of columns ago: With the breakdown of the nuclear family comes the breakdown of society. There is a direct correlation between messed-up families and messed-up kids. Add a gun to the mix and you have what we are experiencing today. Greater support for and accountability of parents and children is a massive step in the right direction.
Nikolas Cruz is a poster child for this very problem. He fell through the cracks at every turn of the way, even though many knew he was a very, very troubled youth—yet the appropriate authorities did nothing about it.
What we now need is a poster child for the answer. Well , come to think of it, a lot of hunters, ranchers, and regular, common sense people come to mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment