Open Letter to Those Who Think Gun Contol Is The Answer

[I would have really liked someone who is more eloquent, more educated and better at debating write this letter for me, but they aren't readily available, so here is my effort.]

Dear Well-intentioned but short-sighted gun control advocate,

I understand that you think you are helping this terrible situation. You think that by doing something, anything, you will help prevent another heinous occurance like the event last Friday. However I would like you to consider that your intentions may be misdirected, and actual outcome will simply be less freedom without more security.

Last Friday afternoon I felt sick to my stomach, first and foremost because of the senseless loss of sweet, innocent, beautiful life. The killings at Sandy Hook Elementary affected me emotionally more than any event ever has (outside of family events of course) . Compounding that loss however, was the disgusting political posturing that followed soon afterward.

A parent of elementary school aged children myself, I take every tragedy against children of this age way too personally. In the pit of my despair (my overwhelming empathy for those parents who lost their little angels) I still knew I'd better have my b.s. detector set to ultra sensitive whenever a politican or mainstream media member would speak. It gave me no pleasure when they rewarded my vigilance by spewing nonsense upon confusion upon lies. Using their platform to push for an agenda of removing a founding freedom and replacing it with gun control.

As I was driving home from work in my car, I listened to our President speak those first emotional words. I wanted so badly to believe those words. I wanted his raw emotion to be sincere...but quickly and quietly, within his emotional compassion, he deftly slipped in a harbinger of his political aspirations...he wants more "change".

Everyone with a forum is getting into this discussion, I've even heard a clueless "disc jockey" at a sports talk station chime in as though he had any authority on the matter. That is what triggered me to action and actually write this letter. Those who are pushing gun repression as a solution to this senseless disaster are missing perspective on the matter, and furthermore they are going to influence a lot of people who never thought this issue through and need context and understanding with fewer platitudes and less political rhetoric. I would like to try and establish some context by addressing a few statements I've heard from the "anti-gun" movement.

"Guns make it easy to kill many people at once."

I will acknowledge that this point actually does contains some validity. Because a gun has the potential to cause a great deal of damage very quickly, it logically makes killing people potentially easier and quicker. It also makes killing possible from a greater distance and with less emotional investment.

But a cursory reflection of this tragedy reveals these aspects of gun use have little relevance to this particular case. This killer did not pick off his victims at a distance that would give him annonimity or his victims any chance at evasion. He took his shots up close and personal, and often. Reports say he broke into the school by force and shot his victims up to 11 times. This repulsive wretch did not want to be disassociated from his victims, and he did not want to sneak up on them, he wanted to murder by any means necessary and make sure it was done thoroughly and loudly.

"With a gun, anyone can commit mass murder."

In spite of a gun's firepower, it is still not easy to just mow down a group of people. Guns are complex machines that can (and often do) malfunction. Each shot is accompanied by recoil that takes physical dexterity to counter, and hitting a target at a distance greater than point-blank range is not a given. A gun is a powerful tool but it is still only as effective as its possessor.

"Spree killings will continue to happen until access to guns is restricted/eliminated."

It is very important to note that taking firearms out of a society does not eliminate mass killings. This has been shown over and over again. If wanton destruction is on the heart of a person, the tool with which it is carried out matters little. In Osaka, Japan (2001), a man killed eight children and injured 13 others at a school armed only with a kitchen knife. In 2008 in Tokyo, a man drove a rental truck into a crowd at a mall, then jumped out and used a knife to finish the job. In all he killed 7 and injured 10 others. Deranged killers will find a way to kill whether guns are available or not.

"The gun used in this tragedy was acquired legally, continued legal gun use will lead to more situations like these."

 This is perhaps the most poor arguement for gun control and the best argument against gun restriction. Making guns illegal does not stop criminals from getting guns. Although the gun he used was legally purchased, he killed its owner to assume possession of it. Restriction of firearms does however stop law-abiding citizens from have the most effective tools for self defense.

"Gun rights people want everyone to carry a gun like the Old West, and they are OK with shoot-outs on every corner"

This one is a doozey, and perhaps the most ridiculous statement I've heard. (and I did actually hear it!) The simple truth is that EVERY PERSON DOES NOT NEED A GUN for legal gun ownership to deter a spree killer from going forward with his intentions. It's not a coincidence that most spree killings happen at schools and other places that restrict legal gun possession (including many workplaces), these are locations where the killer is guaranteed an average of twenty minutes of uninterrupted mayhem before the police even arrive. A spree killer is a coward, they do not want to go where they could be stopped by someone legally carrying a firearm (especially before they get their numbers up so that they can be the center of attention for the next two weeks and then anytime spree killings are mentioned in the future - but Morgan Freeman didn't tell you that).

"The second ammendment was written when people had muskets, not the high powered weapons of today."

Special thanks to our British "friend" (and American History/Law scholar) Piers Morgan for this one...It is vitally important to understand the purpose of the second ammendment. It was not to preserve hunting or our right to own and possess a musket, it was to allow "We The People" to defend ourselves from our government should they lose perspective on their role in our country. By extension I would maintain that if the military has a weapon, then it should be legal for the public to own it as well (but we know that isn't the case...)

So all of you who think that restricting ownership of some or all guns would have prevented this tragedy are either sadly fooling yourself or you have another agenda. It is understandable to want to "do something" about an event like this, but to use this tragedy to forward a political agenda is simply dispicable. Hmmm, why does that sound familiar?

We need to address the environment that allows events like these to occur, not the tools that were used...pencils are not responsible for misspellings. Our society needs to look closely at how we have demonized organized religion, how we have stopped valuing the role of the father in the home, how we use violent video games as babysitters, and how we have blindly drugged countless "square peg" children that don't fit neatly into the "round hole" of public school model. Blaming the availability of guns is the easy way out. These are big ugly topics that are not easy answers, and they are certainly not the only answers, but I would bet all that I own that any one of these factors more directly relates to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary than the availability of certain firearms.


Signed,

A non-gun owning father of grade school children (a.k.a. someone who should be on your side)

Our Mission

As I have attempted to process the events of the last 36 or so hours, I have come to an important conclusion. This blog needs to establish a more clear focus if we ever expect to have any influence on the political discourse in this great nation.

We believe that the American people are very confused about how this election will really affect their personal lives. Most people either vote on a single issue or make their election decisions based upon their emotions about someone, but dropping cynicism and vitriol on them for Obama's re-election will accomplish nothing. Our focus needs to be on how we can make a serious change in the basic political knowledge level of the average American who has no interest in politics because they feel so overwhelmed by their day-to-day lives.

To support that effort, the following is an outline of our mission at Common Sense World.

Our Mission:
To affect a positive change in the American political landscape. We will do this through education and providing persuasive arguments for a return to traditional American values. We want to help provide clarity for people who are honest with their political discourse; to give them a place where their logical mind will be nourished as opposed to knee-jerk emotional thinking. We want to help the average American better understand the long term results of their political choices.

Things we support: (not inclusive)
American exceptionalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited Government, respect for all people, and the acknowledgement that God's will be done.

We have this focus because lasting, positive change is not going to happen through slight-of-hand or fast talking, that is how we got President Obama. 

A Few Thoughts on the Election - Part 1

I must say first of all that I didn't watch any of the network coverage of the election last night, I tired for about 6 minutes, but got so overheated by all the blathering, that I had to shut off the T.V. before I blew chow or a blood vessel in my brain. As of this point I am still not aware of the extent of the election's "damage", I don't know how the electoral college looks or how the popular vote shook out, or even who won any state or local races. My only source of news has been the jubilant ramblings of my liberal Facebook friends, so I basically know that O.B.A.M.A. was reelected in a way that left no questions.

After the 2008 election my biggest emotion was confusion, how could the American people get so worked up over a guy who had literally done nothing to display any experience, leadership or even have an original idea? This guy had associations with people who vocally hated America and were convicted terrorists, but he was totally given a free pass! After really thinking this through I came to the only painful but honest conclusion; he was able to be who he was and still get elected, because of his race.

Martin Luther King Jr had a dream. And the American sheeple though they were fulfilling it with the election of O.B.A.M.A., but I think it is the opposite... America is still not the place where you are judged by the content of your character, but the color of your skin. However we think if we do it to benefit a minority group, now it is OK.

It begins with good the intentions that lead to "Affirmative Action". These programs in turn create destructive attributes such as an entitlement mentality and less motivation to achieve, because now certain people know that all they have to do to advance is beat the others with their skin color. This is the opposite of competition and its effects are too. Next there becomes an overall weakening of the population you were trying to help. With time, more and more "assistance" is given by the government (We The People) to make up for the continued discrepancies in performance created by this learned helplessness. Finally you have a population that is disturbingly reliant on the government for every day-to-day need, and they can't see a way out. They are stuck, held down, left behind.

How did this happen?

"But it isn't our fault, we are just trying to help, and we certainly aren't racist!" Ultimately in a fit of all out white guilt, you vote for Barak Obama. Because he is a person of color, he knows what it's like to be discriminated against, so he will fix this socioeconomic mess! (or at least you will feel better because your not racist if you voted for a African American.)

As sad as this is, I can accept that reality.

What I can't get is how four years of economic stagnation and explosive government growth still hasn't led the sheeple to see who is really behind the curtain! How does a proud and strong country re-elect someone who has thinly-veiled disdain for the very country he leads, and a track record of absolutely sucking as its leader??

I don't understand this and it shakes me to my foundation. It is not hyperbole to say that I woke up this morning wondering if this is how America will fall...It has happened to all "great" societies and it will eventually happen to us. I just hoped it would be in the very distant future, now I really doubt that...

Ugh!

What Exactly is Racism?

I could be wrong, but I was always taught that when you made a decision about someone based on their race, that was racism... According to Wikipedia (always correct BTW) "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination." Furthermore "the wiki" quotes the United Nations as saying this about racial discrimination ,

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.^[14]"(Emphasis added)

A very important distinction to point out is that none of these say that racism is ONLY "white people hating black people". This distinction is so important because the court of political correctness and mainstream media would have you believe that racism only goes in one direction.

Racism is disgusting, but it is time that people acknowledge that it is evident ANY TIME a decision is made based on race, because I think the political left in general doesn't understand that. Check out this video (of audio) and let me know who is making a decision based upon race....

Howard Stern may be nothing more than a "shock-jock", but he appears to have missed the "pro left-wing" memo that lives with Bill Mahr and Michael Moore...

I'm Probably a Little Late on this Apology...

This young lady deserves all the kudos that can be heaped upon her. To be a young person who has discovered that the story shoved down our throat by the mainstream media is not usually the whole story or even all that accurate, is just remarkable and quite literally give me hope for the future. (hyperbole acknowledged and ignored)

I challenge any liberal to listen to this whole video and really think about the damage brought upon this country [world] and certainly to our military by the scourge of political correctness. There is right, and there is wrong. To dance with political correctness completely ignores that fact.

The thing that the United States needs to do the most is change our foreign policy to acknowledge that we will act in our own interest. If you are a foreign land that wants our help you will understand that our assistance comes with conditions. If you have a problem with those conditions, then you don't have to accept our taxpayer's dollars. There are a ridiculous number of things that need to be done at home that aren't, because we are busy being the world police and throwing piles of money at corrupt governments. Get some stones America, if you want to learn how, just ask this young lady.