Aurora Shootings

By now, I'm sure most have heard of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. While for those who were there for this tragedy, this is something that will live on in infamy, this sort of thing has all happened before. Some kind of mass murder, or an attempt at that... then all the political/activist figures make sure that the cameras catch them crying, then they use it to push their agendas.

Don't give me that look - chances are you know damned well what I am talking about. We see it every time there is any kind of shooting or domestic terrorism act that isn't linked to pissed off Muslims. It's reminiscent of the attitude in Victorian England during the Jack the Ripper case - "an Englishman couldn't have done it." We try to isolate ourselves as Americans and place blame on something else for an act committed by an American. Video games, music, television, movies, and of course, the gun industry. It can never just be the fault of the asshole who committed the act, or in some cases, the assholes who drove them to that point of desperation. 

Of course, the loudest lobby using this tragedy to their advantage is the anti-gun (read: "gun-control") lobby. Of course, guns weren't the only means he had to kill people. His home was rigged with all kinds of homemade explosives. He could have thrown a few of those in... or created a chemical weapon (and quite easily at that), and probably killed many more people.

On the other hand, logic dictates we also ask what would have happened if there were even one or two good people there who were armed. The guy would have gotten off fewer shots, don't ya think? The anti-gun people love to use statistics from other countries to justify out and out gun bans. They talk about how gun bans in places like England and Australia have reduced the number of gun crimes.

Gun bans reduce gun crimes. I'll give you a moment to think about that statement.

What they are less proud of is that the overall number of violent crimes in those nations has steadily climbed since these gun bans have been put in effect. Of course, you don't even have to look as far away as Europe or Australia to see how effective gun bans are at reducing violence... Mexico also has a ban on guns. And no, don't believe that line about them getting all or even most of their guns from America. The truth is that the majority of guns that can be tracked are tracked to American sources. Most of them can't be tracked - non-American sources often are more lax in their policies about guns being trackable. Realistically, less than approximately 20% of all the guns illegally in Mexico came from the US. The really scary guns in Mexico aren't even legal in the US. We have guns on the civilian market that look like assault rifles, but they lack that one all-important characteristic of actual assault rifles - select-fire capability. That is, the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully-automatic (ie, machine gun).

In honesty, you don't even have to look as far as Mexico to see how well gun bans work. DC and Chicago, until recently, had gun bans. DC was the murder capital of the US, with Chicago not far behind. Also keep in mind that you always hear about such massacres happening in supposed gun-free zones. Never at a shooting range or a gun store. Why do you think that is?

This nation's founders gave us the right to keep and bear arms not for hunting, but for protection from tyranny. Don't allow that right to be taken away as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy.

The one thing that does differentiate such tragedies from each other are the heroes. The ones who stopped to give basic aid to the injured, the ones who died to protect their girlfriends. Those are the ones who distinguish themselves and truly do deserve praise.

Turning Up the Heat

You've likely heard that if you put a frog in hot water, it will struggle to escape, but if you put a frog in room temperature water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog won't notice and will be burned to death. The meaning of this is fairly simple - if someone directly attacks a fundamental right or liberty, we will notice it and see them for what they truly are. But, if they slowly chisel away at something... well, the heat is being turned up.

This is a very common tactic. It's been used for a very long time by the Brady Campaign, by MADD, and is now being used in a big and obvious way by the anti-birth control movement.

Let's start with MADD. While they started with admirable intentions and goals, they have more recently seemed to gravitate toward prohibition. After they accomplished their initial goals, they kept pushing further. They are pushing toward further lowering the legal BAC to the point where science gives no support to a claim of intoxication. They seem to want to punish people for drinking. Not for drunk driving, or even for being drunk. They haven't seemed to get much attention as of late, but I still notice that when a local politician is caught in a scandal, they start attacking the alcohol and tobacco people at various levels to distract. Perhaps there's some MADD influence there, perhaps not.

Next, let's look at the Brady Campaign. I will say right off that I am fond of guns, and am more than a little knowledgeable on them. The Brady Campaign's goals seem reasonable to those who aren't knowledgeable about guns, and those who don't understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment - that is to say, it was the Founders' way of insuring that the government never became tyrannical. Also, they didn't really intend for a standing army. They liked the Swiss idea of every citizen being a soldier of sorts if the need arised. So technically, we should all have access to military grade weapons.

The Brady Campaign, bullshit aside, has the ultimate goal of banning guns as a whole. They start by asking for background checks, which does seem reasonable. Then they continue by having waiting periods. Then they want "assault weapons" banned. The Brady Campaign's definition of assault weapons is its own; to one who is knowledgeable on guns, said definition is "anything that looks too scary." They don't like flash suppressors (which don't actually hide the flash), they don't like silencers (which work nothing like they do in movies - guns are still loud enough to damage the hearing, just not as loud), they don't like barrel shrouds (keeps one from burning their hand when they hold the barrel for stability), they don't like pistol grips on rifles/shotguns (ergonomics, really), collapsing stocks (adjustable for shooter comfort), folding stocks (stock folds out of the way for different shooting style). They also don't like high capacity magazines, which may be more understandable for some, but I believe that they make little difference. Then they want to ban semi automatics as a whole. Then they want to ban handguns as a whole because of supposed ease of concealment. Then likely, they'll say they want to ban rifles as a whole, because of accuracy at long distance.

The issue that's been getting the most attention however is the abortion/birth control debate. First they wanted to ban late-term abortion. That's something I can actually get behind, unless said abortion is medically necessary. Then they want to ban abortions altogether. For some, it ends there... but not all. Because of a lack of unity in this movement, they are quite sloppy.

More recently, we've seen birth control pills (that neat little pill that prevents abortions from becoming necessary in the first place) come under attack... not just the Plan B pills, either. Some say that we shouldn't have to pay for women to be able to have sex... but I have yet to see Viagra come under similar scrutiny. Viagra is currently much more expensive than birth control, and having checked a Blue Cross/Blue Shield website, it comes up as a Tier 2 - preferred brand. To give an idea, a popular brand name tri-cyclic birth control pill, for a four week supply, costs about $80 without insurance. Viagra, for six pills, costs about $130. Do the math. Keep in mind, these are both name brand drugs... the birth control drug price I speak of is not for a generic.

So it's not the idea of paying for someone else to have sex that these people are objecting to. It is the idea specifically of a woman having sex. It's not a new double standard, though. When a woman has sex with a lot of people, she's a slut. When a man has sex with a lot of people, he's just lucky... or a stud... or something cool. But no negative label.

Get informed on the issues, and don't be afraid to call bullshit. Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the position of the frog being slowly boiled to death. The heat is being turned up.