Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based political science major, author, writer and columnist. Follow him on Twitter.
I don’t know about the rest of you but personally I’m tired of being
forced to play the role of “victim.” Two recent mass shootings — one
in Hawaii Tuesday and one in Seattle Wednesday — have forced me to
dramatically change my views on guns and gun rights.
Which is to say, I would like to see all prohibitions against
guns repealed and repealed now. All of them — against handguns,
“assault” guns, shotguns, cheap guns, expensive guns, long guns, short
guns, and guns with funny names. All of them.
Before this week, I could see the logic in forbidding guns in some
public places like courtrooms, businesses, schools, churches, and bars.
Not anymore; that’s because it’s obvious that regardless of where you
live or where you go, you’re not safe enough.
The police, God bless ‘em, cannot protect us entirely. I don’t care
if President Clinton and Congress pass laws enabling the hiring of
another 500,000 police officers — you and I are not going
to be safe 100 percent of the time. That expectation — long held by
liberals as the very reason for more gun control — is pure
fantasy. To play off a line from Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, it is not
the religious who are “weak-minded” but instead people who honestly
believe they can be safe 100 percent of the time — if only we had
500,000 more police and no civilian-owned and carried guns in
circulation. Get real.
No doubt that abolishing all gun control laws will not guarantee that
you and I will be safe 100 percent of the time either. But based on the
statistics and common sense, you and I will sure be much safer
without laws that, in essence, prohibit us from being able to
adequately protect ourselves. It is a fact.
That’s because the problem here is not now, nor has it ever been, guns. Guns are inanimate objects that are being misused by
losers, crazies, and idiots. But so are cars, alcohol, crack cocaine
and baseball bats. In fact, I dare say there are precious few inanimate
objects in existence today that cannot be misused in some way to
hurt another person. It takes a sick mind to even decide to hurt
somebody else; the choice of “weapon” is irrelevant.
When you’re talking about guns in the hands of lunatics, only guns in
the hands of honest people who have a desire (and a right) to survive
will suffice. Only giving people “911″ in the face of an immediate and
armed threat is itself criminal. Like the old saying goes, “Don’t bring
your fists to a gunfight. You’ll lose.”
But liberal statists — those weird creatures who perceive a utopia
that simply cannot exist in this world — continue to insist that you
and I play the hapless, helpless victim. Their gun control policies
have gotten more decent people killed than crazies with guns. Look it
Enough already. They have no right to put you, our families or me at
risk any longer.
In nearly all cases crazed lunatics with guns — as in Seattle
Wednesday — actually run past a number of people when picking their
targets. All these people can do is hide, cower in fear, watch their
friends and co-workers get killed, and hope like Hades they aren’t going
to be shot next. What kind of lunatic seriously believes this is
better than having an actual means to defend oneself?
Liberal lunatics, that’s who. Congressional, judicial and
presidential lunatics — just the sort of people who have their own
(taxpayer financed) security detachments. They don’t sweat idiots with
guns because squads of security personnel armed with fully automatic
weapons and enough handguns to open a small gun store surround them.
They say they deserve protection; I say they’re right, but so do
I. Better still, I’m not asking them to “defend” me, so it
doesn’t cost anyone else one thin dime. I’ll bear those costs myself.
And I’ll take responsibility for my own defense as well. If, by some
grotesque act of Satan, I wrongly shoot another person, then put me in
chains and give me my day in court. In the meantime, however, I say stop
forcing me to walk around with a target on my chest or a sign that says,
“I’m legally unarmed; kill me.”
If, after all of these dangerous gun control laws are repealed,
liberals still insist on playing the victim, let them. That’s
their choice; but as for my family and me we choose “life.”
The funny thing is, with less gun control even anti-gun liberals are
better defended. That’s because, in places where people are “allowed”
to carry weapons, idiots with guns don’t always know who is and isn’t
armed when planning their crimes. That fact alone has deterred unknown
thousands of crimes; the criminals themselves have repeatedly said so.
They hate an armed populace because it makes their “trade” more
But creating more danger for criminals is exactly what we ought to be
seeking in terms of public policy. Instead, the liberals have it
backwards — they have made it more dangerous for law-abiding
people to walk their own streets. How does that accomplish “domestic
We don’t have to legalize artillery pieces, nuclear weapons and
anti-aircraft guns in order to achieve the kind of society we all want
– one that is safer, more respectful, and better behaved. We do,
however, have to stop liberals from mandating all of this feministic
victimization; they’re literally killing us with all their “concern.”
The right to self-defense is a God-given right, not a
“government-given” right. People concerned about their own safety ought
to turn the entire gun control debate into one that mimics the
“pro-choice” line by insisting it is our “choice” to either protect
ourselves or rely on others to do it.
I choose the former. I also choose to put armed criminals on notice
– if you waltz into my office with a gun and evil intentions,
you will in turn be gunned down for your stupidity; you won’t live to
see a trial. That’s the message we, as a nation, ought to be sending to
those elements of our society who like to prey on us. No more.
Let the statist liberals and arrogant lawmakers opt for victimhood.
It suits them better.