This morning Sebastian posted a link to something the CSGV posted on their Facebook page bashing pro-gun bloggers including one who is a personal friend. Upon reading it when I got home they had updated to have a response to Sebastian’s response.
The Peterson-Syndrome is showing through. If we are going to take her argument at face value we must then ask, what about the opinions of people like Suzanna Hupp who had the tools and skills to end the violence brought before them but were disarmed.
Every argument they make is premised with the belief that every permit carrier is going to snap and go on a shooting rampage. They are often projecting their own feelings and emotions forgetting that a potentiality is not an actuality. They seem to think our goal is to see people shot and injured while ignoring the fact we are merely supporting the inalienable right of self-defense.
Joan Peterson shot herself in the foot and proved her mental defect when she stated the equivalent of the following:
Joan Peterson wants more victims at the hands of criminals as long as they aren’t committed with a gun. On our side of the fence want people to not be forced by law to be victims.
- We want women to be able to defend themselves from rapists who would violate them.
- We want the elderly to be able to defend themselves from young thugs who would beat them to death to impress a girl.
- We want people to be able to defend themselves from criminals who would take their lives.
- We want people to have access to the most effective tools of self-defense.
Often this last point is portrayed as if we want to force everyone to carry a gun. The fact is though that couldn’t be further from the truth. We want people to be able to make the choice if they wish to be able to defend themselves.
If we allow Joan’s logic of being a victim of violence to be correct, like Sebastian I am a victim of cancer. My father passed away from pancreatic cancer when I was 19.
Just the same though I am also a victim of violence. My mother stopped the abuse of an elderly couple and arrested the situation when the thugs tried to threaten and intimidate her. How did she do this? She used a firearm, not a single shot was fired. The group of kids were arrested minutes later while trying to steal a car when the police arrived. People like Joan and the CSGV would prefer my mom had left the couple at the mercy of those thugs and been at their mercy herself.
My father and mother went to the movies when I was a baby. A group of four proceeded to be extremely rude, intimidated the staff, and were generally discourteous. My father went to talk to the manager about the men who were still causing problems after the movie was over. The men noticing what my father was doing proceeded to start harassing him. They were warned to move on and to leave. They continued to harass and physically intimidate my father until they placed themselves between my father and mother. At this time my dad withdrew his firearm holding it at his side, at no time was it pointed at anyone, he then directed the men to remove themselves from between him and my mother immediately. They complied and the police, who had already been called, arrived shortly thereafter. The city of Kent charged my father with “assault with a deadly weapon.” The jury found him not guilty with less than thirty minutes deliberation. As jurors were leaving, two jurors approached my father and his attorney and informed them that prior to this trial they disliked firearms and supported gun control. They then expressed that had they been in my fathers position they would have wanted a firearm, and due to the trial they were expanding their horizons. In this case the CSGV would prefer a father be outnumbered and possibly permanently injured to not return home to support and protect his children.
The bottom line is that ultimately each side of this debate supposedly wants the same thing, less violence. The problem is the anti-gun lobby only cares about “gun violence”. If rape, murder, and other violent crimes increased but a gun wasn’t used, they would still consider that a win. In our book crime is crime, no matter the tool used. It ends up that the firearm is the most effective tool for self-defense, anyone can learn to use a firearm and physical ability is not the deciding factor in use. God created men, Samuel Colt made them equal. People have even more right to make themselves NOT a victim than to be forced by law to be disarmed and become prey for predators.