Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Vac Rental | E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

When seconds count . . .

March 10, 2014 - Harry Eagar
The gun nuts are fond of saying that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. This is supposed to justify walking around armed all the time, because you just never know.

But is this correct? Is forewarned both armed and forearmed? What if the police are right there? What if they know trouble is coming? Is carrying heat the best protection?

Not if what happened in Fremont, Ohio, is any guide.

Read it and weep, but it looks as if a cop in a bar (presumably armed no matter what the gun carrying laws are for other people in Ohio) knew an angry guy was making trouble, but that was no protection for him, since Angry Guy just opened a side door and started shooting.

"Thoughtless reaction" -- as advocated by gun nut Cory Trapp (see "Equal Time for Gun Nuts," March 1) -- doesn't work if you are being assassinated from ambush, as it appears happened to Officer Chavez -- and to two other people.

If you add up all the people saved by gun mania and subtract all those, like Officer Chavez, killed by it, you get a pile of the slain, millions of them.

But the gun nuts are safe from argument. My father, a Catholic, used to use a term from the medieval church about people like that -- invincible ignorance. In the view of theologians, invincible ignorance is a get-out-of-hell-free card in the sin business.

Kinda cold comfort up here, though, if you are among the holocaust of the slain (or merely maimed) sacrificed to the Moloch of the Second Amendment.

 
 

Article Comments

(16)

bkaahui

Mar-24-14 9:22 PM

But not your brain, lol.

bkaahui

Mar-24-14 5:34 PM

Sorry, I don't associate with cowards such as yourself. When you work up the courage for once in your life to stand up for what you believe in, let me know.

Until then, keep searching for that last tiny ounce of manhood that you might have left. If you cant find it that is.

bkaahui

Mar-21-14 11:43 PM

Piers Morgan often compares America to other countries like Britain or Japan. I would just like to ask him one thing: Besides a major civil war, how would you propose collecting the estimated 300 million guns in America? We've seen what a spectacular failure the war on drugs, poverty, and terrorism has been. I'm guessing a War on Guns would be just about as effective as the prohibition on marijuana has been.

bkaahui

Mar-21-14 9:38 PM

With over 200+ million guns in America, unless there is some kind of major war of wars, there will be no getting rid of guns in the USA. They are here to stay for the foreseeable future

The only thing gun laws do is force law-abiding citizens to surrender their arms, while criminals ignore these laws and reign free.

bkaahui

Mar-21-14 9:35 PM

Guns really define American culture so I don't see how you would ever get rid of that feature. It would be like asking Hawaiians to give up the ocean.

If you look at the FBI statistics, all rifles, including "assault weapons," are less dangerous than hammers and clubs, which account for a greater number of deaths each year. Fists kill twice as many people as rifles do every year. I know this is a very emotional issue for some people but we can't allow our emotions to cloud our reason. It makes no sense to ban certain kinds of rifles based on cosmetic features just to make people feel safer. I don't want to live in a TSA nightmare. I accept that there are risks in this world that the government can't do anything to stop. As tragic as mass shootings are, they are relatively rare, and certainly not frequent enough to warrant surrendering our civil liberties to the government.

bkaahui

Mar-21-14 4:56 PM

If you want to ban guns you have to be consistent. You say they are too dangerous for people to have, and if that is true then we can't trust the military or police with guns either.

I believe in keeping our civil liberties. The government has already taken away our 4th and 10th amendment rights, and I see no reason to voluntarily forfeit the 2nd. If you don't believe in the Bill of Rights, there is a process called a "Constitutional Amendment" which can change the Constitution. But it is not right for the government to just ignore the Constitution and our civil liberties based on fear and hysteria.

Terrorism, guns, communism, there is always some abstract threat to society, and the only solution always involves giving up our rights to the government, foolishly believing that such power will not be abused.

HarryEagar

Mar-13-14 3:22 PM

I don't think that countries without civil rights 'get along fine,' but then, I am a liberal.

I agree, based on the record, rightwingers generally do think it would be fine to 'get along' without basic rights. I cannot think of any rightwing government, ever, that had a good civil rights regime.

6letterslong

Mar-13-14 12:52 AM

So, if he wouldn't have been armed, this guy wouldn't have shot him? That makes no sense to me.

Mar-12-14 6:20 PM

"What does it matter whether any of the people involved were citizens?"

More lib brilliance. If not for people like the author prying our borders open, Chavez would be alive today. So, I bet he would say it matters to him, if he weren't dead and unable to say anything.

Mar-12-14 6:15 PM

HarryEagar, plenty of other countries get along fine without freedom of speech and the press, freedom of religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, etc., too. Who cares what they do in these Dark Age places?

Of course, most of them get along fine without importing the dregs of the third world, too, so maybe we can learn something from them...

Mar-12-14 6:13 PM

bkaahui, I'll meet you half-way and agree that the gov't and all gov't employees should be disarmed.

Mar-12-14 6:10 PM

Liberal:logic as Vampire:crosses

Liberal says people are better prepared to face ambush unarmed than to face them armed.

This is the kind of nonsense that passes for thinking among libs. They gave this guy a job telling people what to think.

Also, it's really cute how libs pretend to care about people, and not their stupid careers to the exclusion of everything else. I mean, nothing says "I have your best interests at heart" like "you'd be better off going into that ambush unarmed, so I'm going to ban firearms for your own good."

bkaahui

Mar-11-14 3:26 PM

If we add up all the people killed by the government and add up all the people killed by private gun owners, government takes the cake by orders of magnitude.

I would support gun control if we apply this principle equally toward the military and police. EVERYONE should disarm.

bkaahui

Mar-11-14 3:12 PM

Because our government can't be trusted with that kind of power.

When we live in a world where governments aren't corrupt and don't abuse power then maybe we can talk about gun control.

HarryEagar

Mar-10-14 7:57 PM

What does it matter whether any of the people involved were citizens?

Other countries manage to get along without arming the least stable 30% of the population with firearms. Why can't we?

rickglax

Mar-10-14 6:41 PM

Missing from the story is "angry guy is not a US citizen and angry guy first punched the police officers wife in the face - then came back and shot everyone".This is comical, you act as if we could ban guns then all of the gun violence would end. What's the old saying "if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns".

 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web
 
 

Blog Links