Saturday, April 21, 2007

The Gun Control Debate

When I wrote my previous post, I had no idea just how loud both sides would become in the gun control debate that has followed the Virginia Tech incident this week. Tonight at CNN, I found an article linked in their Top Stories section that is hopelessly illogical. To CNN's credit, they visibly marked it as an opinion piece and linked to an article by Ted Nugent at both the top and the bottom. Regardless, let's take a quick look at the rubbish put forth by UCLA Professor Tom Plate.

First, the title:

Let's lay down our right to bear arms

Obviously, Professor Plate wanted to stir something up with this title, but the point sinks home. Gun control advocates see the Virginia Tech situation as their end game in the debate. However, why don't we reframe the argument for them? Do they remember the warrantless phone tapping President Bush authorized? Were they the ones who said, "Let's lay down our right to privacy" in the wake of terrorist attacks? In fact, I bet it's the exact opposite. I bet they called for impeachment.

Our nation was founded on a healthy distrust of authority which brought us the Second Amendment. In a year where liberals have chided the President for acting like an authoritarian, how can they possibly want to remove one of the tools that helps keep his power in check?

Moving on...

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

Have you ever read anything quite so condescending? Generally so proud? Apples and oranges? How does Professor Plate think the colonists attained the apples? Could it have been with the oranges?

These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun. need to keep reading. The Professor showed his hand, and there's not much in it. Did the handguns float to Norris Hall and fire off 200 rounds on their own? No, a man who just so happened to be Korean (not sure why Plate is so concerned about race in this article) carried them there and pulled the trigger. If he had used the knife, would we have blamed the knife? The hammer?

What if knives, hammers, and guns were unavailable? Maybe he would have used...I don't know...fertilizer?

The point those like Professor Plate miss is if somebody wants to murder, they will. We can either sentence ourselves to lives in a padded cell, or we can responsibly deter and, if necessary, defend when confronted by evil.



Post a Comment

<< Home