This is yet another essay on guns by a conservative Neanderthal who thinks evabiddy oughter have the right to shoot evabiddy else iff’n they feels like it. And that goes double for their dog, too, gosh darn it. /sarc
Okay, that little speech pretty much covers the “gun control” talking points in this country when it comes to what they think the other side is like — i.e., Bible in one hand, gun in the other.
But if you look at the news once a week or so, it becomes obvious that in our grand American Exceptionalism, we have devised many more ways to kill people than the anti-gun folks would have you believe. Knives, hatchets, bombs, pressure cookers with bombs, exploding backpacks and the like. But our foremost method of violent deaths here seldom gets mentioned: automobiles. Especially those driven by the inebriated. Our 32,000+ annual car fatalities are simply the accepted risk for driving.
There was a horrendous one today in Oklahoma. No Islam, folks, just the usual awfulness that we remember from more “normal” times when average people did bad things and irrevocably changed their own lives and the lives of others. In this case, at least three people are dead because a local twenty-five year-old white woman was drunk when she plowed into the iconic Oklahoma State University Homecoming Parade at 10:30 on a beautiful October morning. This is no ordinary parade, but a much-loved custom dating back over the decades since college football became a big money-maker at state-funded schools. For any school, it doesn’t get much bigger or more important than the Homecoming Parade that precedes the football game.
For the drunk driver who did this there probably won’t be any bail allowed, simply to protect the perpetrator from the enraged people who would do her harm.
So with more than thirty thousand deaths annually due directly to cars, what do you think the chances are that we’ll hear a call for the repeal of automobiles? Will schools proudly proclaim they are “car-free zones”? No, I don’t think they will either. We have the technology available now to make a car shut down if the driver can’t pass a breathalyzer. Don’t you wonder why we don’t use it? Where are the noisy gun-control advocates when you need them?
Bill Whittle’s parallel logic in this video about gun control makes the point that it’s not the actions of people that result in gun deaths, but the material from which guns are made that is the problem:
I agree with Mr. Whittle’s assessment. He makes the salient and vital point about the crucial need for fathers, genuine men who are involved in their children’s lives. In order to explain what kinds of men he means he uses as the anti-man portrayed by a New York Times essay about the ways to be a modern man. A modern NYT man is a mewling metrosexual who wouldn’t be caught dead with a gun. Sadly, though, in certain parts of New York City or Chicago or St. Louis, he is statistically much more likely to be “caught dead” if he’s unarmed than if he dares to carry protection. Oh, I forgot, most of those are gun-free zones.
If those wimpy traits delineated by the Times comprise the modern man, then we are truly lost. They are no better than modern wymyn, those shrews who demand an “equality” that already has been theirs for years. Moderns don’t comprehend that an equal footing in life is not something bestowed upon us; it is something earned by every single person who lives long enough to assume the prerogatives and responsibilities of maturity. Just as men must needs learn to protect themselves and their families from predators, so must women do the same. Both would be well-advised to surrender their so-called freedom (lived in fact as license) in order to find other like-minded adults who are willing to band together in pairs and in groups for their own good and for the good of their children.
Or maybe they could just move out of the New York Times’ zone?