Scoot: Is Ft. Hood shooting a call for more guns or more laws?
by Scoot,posted Apr 3 2014 12:38AM
Even before all the facts are known, some will be tempted to use the shooting at Ft. Hood in Killeen, TX to promote stricter gun control. Others will be tempted to promote the need for more gun ownership. These instinctive reactions to mass media coverage of a shooting expose the ruthless nature of both extremes in the gun debate in America.
Once more facts are known about the motivation for the shooting at Ft. Hood, I will be surprised if stricter gun control laws or more armed citizens would have prevented the attack.
Recent shootings at the elementary school in Newtown, CT, the Navy Yard in Washington, DC and the movie theater in Aurora, CO quickly become political pawns in a heated chess match of gun controlgun rights agendas. But a common sense analysis of the shootings leads to the realization that neither gun control laws nor more armed citizens would have had an impact on the individuals who were determined to commit acts of violence. Laws do not control deranged minds.
If a chess game is a metaphor for the gun debate in America, then the media acts as the chess board, giving each side in the debate designated opportunities to strategically defeat their opponent. The media benefits from the conflict of debates, and eagerly pits one side against the other in order to incite further debate, which inspires an emotional bond with the viewing audience.
Through the media, America now sees itself as a nation of individuals divided by political debate. There was a time when Americans were more private about their political affiliation. Today, many Americans brag about their political positions, not simply to express themselves, but to actually incite others. Using our precious right to free speech should be more about protecting that freedom than about taunting others to disagree.
Boasting about political affiliation or strong positions on issues through signs, T-shirts, bumper stickers or calling talk radio shows have become a means to antagonize the other side, rather than tacitly express individual’s views.
Many Americans seem to have lost the confidence to stand as individuals in their thinking and actions, and look instead to gain perceived power and status by aligning themselves with a group. Reinforcing a belief system through membership in a larger group becomes so important that even with disagreement over some of the group’s beliefs, individuals still claim membership in the group.
We as individuals should challenge ourselves to find the confidence to be independent in our thinking and actions, and refuse to cling to a larger group for reassurance that our thinking and actions are righteous and shared.
When a public shooting occurs, many will immediately seek refuge in their group and will work to advance the idea that stricter gun control is needed – or more citizens must be armed.
In Louisiana, the legislature is considering a new bill that would allow citizens to carry guns into establishments that serve alcohol. Rep. Jeff Thompson (R-Bossier) has proposed the bill making it legal to carry guns into restaurants that serve mostly food, but also serve alcohol - arguing that people should be allowed to protect themselves and their families when they go out to eat at a restaurant, like Applebee’s or Chili’s.
In theory, it makes sense to have trained gun owners everywhere in the event a mad gunman appears, but in reality, many of those who want to carry a gun everywhere are more interested in promoting their 2nd Amendment rights than they are in becoming highly-trained gun owners who are prepared to take down a shooter near the table by the window!
The idea of more guns in the hands of individuals in public settings is a fantasy solution for stopping crazed gunmen. We have all heard about recent stories where the presence of a gun led to an individual taking a life under circumstances where their life may not have actually been threatened.
Whether it is gun control or gun rights or any other issue – rather blindly align yourself with one side in the debate – rationally think about your views and resist the instinct to join a cheering crowd.
From the standpoint of a talk show host dealing with the issue of guns in America, it might be convenient to be an extremist as so many talk show hosts are. But my radically logical mind forces me to apply common sense in assessing whether less guns or more guns would have prevented a shooting, like the one that occurred late yesterday at Ft. Hood.
We should all be bold enough to advance an agenda of common sense!
Scoot: Is Ft. Hood shooting a call for more guns or more laws?
Please Enter Your Comments Below
Pshcho's don't worry about paper work!!
Any pshcho who wants a gun is going to find one. Putting more paper work on legally owning a gun is only going to hender the law abiding AMERICAN. Give America back to the people and make Obama show HIS "paper work"
Gun Control made this possible
Please explain to me how disarming the "Armed" Forces on base makes any sense whatsoever? It doesn't. Neither does disarming regular law abiding citizens. Gun Control is a disaster, it never reduces or prevents ANY crime whatsoever, and it empowers criminals. If this were to have happened in a civilian gun free zone (such as the Aurora Colorado where 12 people were gunned down), I'd call it a travesty and an outrage. But the fact that this happened on a military base (AGAIN!) is just plain unacceptable. The law prohibiting military personnel from carrying firearms while on base is absolutely absurd, and needs to be repealed at once.
Gun free zones
Gun free zones are an ingenious idea to create target rich enviroments for mass killings so that more gun laws can be created. They know we would never give up the 2nd Amendment, unless sympathy were involved.
If a military base is a "gun free zone" then why are these rogue shooters usually taken out by armed guards? Another NRA myth. People buy into the cliche without research. Pull your heads out of your gun barrels! Obviously people on the base are armed and those who aren't on duty or just visiting aren't supposed to bring in guns. Gun restricted is NOT gun-free on a military base.
Hey, moron that commented "Fort Hood"
Yeah, they had to call guys with guns to come and shoot the gunman who'd just killed 3 people. So you are right, there are SOME guns on Fort Hood. Just like there are SOME guns at the police station 3 blocks from my home. But if someone wants tocome and shoot me, those police a few blocks away are going to serve zero purpose except to shoot the guy, after he shot me. What a moronic comment. These are soldiers, soldiers (or any free man/woman for that matter), should not be disarmed.
Hey Moron That Called Me Moron
How does your side of this expect to be taken seriously when they call something a "gun free zone" and it isn't? You LIE. No one is "disarming" free men/women. You're free to carry in accordance with the law and if my business, or that base says don't carry, you don't carry.
According to the NYT, Fort Hood does very little to keep guns off the military base.
"Fort Hood’s weapons rules for soldiers who are not police officers rely in large part on the honor system," the Times reports.
The base does not requireentrants to go through a metal detector or any similar screening, a source told the Times.
to the moron crying about the other moron complaining about the first moron
Any psycho who wants gun will do want any other person wanting a gun does: go to a gun show where it is nice and dry and buy them from the people who are more than happy to sell them and the psycho doesn't have to worry about background checks in most states or the morality of the person who will sell him the gun.
Which is why when the NRA and the gun-avid tell us that "background checks already happen" they're being dishonest - plug the gun show loophole and prevent unchecked sales. Period. And shut down any gun store that "loses" a gun off the books too.