[lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
- From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:00:01 -0400
As I said a few days back to which no one responded... the problem is not
that a lot of people have guns, it's that a lot of people think they NEED
guns, WANT to have guns and want to USE guns against people. The main
problem is that there are people who think that killing other people is
acceptable. Did you see the thing on the news last night (perhaps it was on
60 Minutes) about people who refused to "snitch" on people. That's a big
problem. The problem lies in a society where it is NOT the case that a "vast
majority of people" think it's not okay to be a criminal. That's the problem
with the USA... there is a large, dangerous criminal contingent AND there is
virtually no gun control. It's those two things combined that makes it
dangerous. But to think that just because everyone else has a gun, you
should get one too? That is the real 'irrational' thinking you talk of
Lawrence.
Obama was partly right -- but as a politician, he looks self-serving -- that
it's really a problem in society and is not just one of violence. It's
because people, a WHOLE lot of people actually think it's okay to step on
other people, take their shit, by force if necessary, and kill others for
looking at them wrong. Even when I lived in Toronto (the largest major city
and one of only THREE in the whole of Canada) there was no place I would
feel unsafe. There just wasn't. If I drive across the border into Detroit, I
feel unsafe and the primary reason is not because I have some kind of
prejudiced attitude towards Americans (although I do), it's because I'm
fully aware that a whole shitload of people have guns and that's terrifying
to me. I know someone who got shot repeatedly for pissing on a tree in
Detroit. Is that why you should have guns? So you can shoot on a drunk
party-goer for threatening your Elm tree? In the back -- into the car as it
was racing away after you shot the guy? It's that mentality + the guns that
make the chos of the world possible. Retribution -- you would probably call
it protecting yourselves.
Here is a response that I wrote the other day, but forgot to send:
LH: Did you read her comment? " If they'd even dared come close to me,
they'd be 6 feet under by now."
Yes... if they "DARED" to "come close to me"... well that's a GREAT fucking
reason for killing someone. Oooh, you got too close to me! Nevermind how she
sounds... listen to you defending the good ole granny. Did you hear YOUR
comment?
LH: She is saying for those not used to ideas of self-defense, "if they were
to come toward me, I would shoot them rather than let them get to me."
As if she can positively discern their intentions. Oh, but I forgot, kill
them first, ask questions later. And your laws CONDONE it as you proved.
LH: If you read her comments, you will see that when they tried to steal her
farm machinery, she didn't find it necessary to "put them six feet under,"
she shot out their tires and held them for the police.
And I FULLY trust an EIGHTY TWO year old, former miss america to shoot at
people's tires safely. That's a great way to live or die as the case may be.
Did you know that the government requires repeated driver's licenses after
the age of 80? And you want the same granny who can't turn left on a green
to be able to shoot out people's tires? What would you say if someone tried
to shoot out the tires and accidentally shot the driver? In the back? As he
was pulling over, after the first shot? No doubt, she'd get off. And,
evidently, that's the way it oughta be in the good ole u s of a.
paul
Other related posts:
