The quote "The only
way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun" was said
after the Sandy Hook shooting incident by NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre. He
himself took harsh criticism for uttering those words. I can understand why so
many people were upset by those words, mainly because of the insensitivity it
portrayed and because it was said so close after the incident when people where
still grieving. But I also believe I
understand he (LaPierre) was trying to say. I firmly believe in those words and
I hope I can explain and convey my logic on why I do so.
When I say “good guy” I
think of all the good people I know in my life and there are tons of them. When
it comes to situations involving disasters or crimes, I like to think of the
good guys as first responders, fire fighters, EMT personnel, and especially police
officers. As for the bad guys, well that’s
a given. The bad guys are those who intentionally try to hurt another human
being or willfully disobey the law and put others at risk or wish to disturb
the peace of the community. When a bad guy is confronted, he is usually
confronted by a police officer. That police officer is the good guy. Regardless
if the bad guy has a gun or not, the police officer will possibly meet him with
gun drawn, ready to engage if need be. If you recall any of the past incidents
involving mass shootings, we know that the good guys outnumbered the bad and
the good guys stopped the bad guys. How did the good stop the bad? With Guns…
From what I recall from researching these shootings, the bad guys didn't just stop
and say “I think I killed enough people, I’m done” and then just kill
themselves or surrender. No, the bad guys with guns were confronted by the good
guys with guns and the good guys prevailed. I don’t think there is anything to
argue about that.
***On a side note, I said
something on my last post that I feel I need to address. I referenced the
soldier/gunman as the ‘bad guy.’ This was clearly to identify the situation in
my blog. I didn't intend to specifically call the soldier involved a bad guy. He
committed a heinous act and as a result, many people are suffering and his name
and actions will forever be infamous. He did, however, serve our country and he
deserves a little respect for that. From what is being said in the news, he
served several tours overseas and upon his return, he was under psychiatric
treatment for PTSD and other mental disorders. The gunman may have experienced things
that affected his state of mind that we will never come to understand. The
issue is more than a gun problem. We have a mental health problem, especially
with our military. Hopefully we as a nation come to give a greater amount of
attention to this and figure out solutions to help curve the problem.
Hi. I've been reading on the sidelines and wanted to put a few words in.
ReplyDeleteThere is a great misunderstanding about who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. Advocates of 'Gun Control' pre-assume that Military or Law Enforcement personnel are good, and everyone else who could have a weapon is inherently bad. Advocates of the 2nd Amendment (AKA Gun Nuts) make a different call. They assume that guns are AMORAL. I'm borrowing from Dave Ramsey when I bring up the analogy of the brick and the dollar. Bricks can be thrown through windows and cause damage and suffering. Bricks can also be laid end-to-end and build a hospital or a business. Bricks, dollars, and guns are amoral. They don't have feelings or intentions, they amplify the feelings and intentions of the men and women who wield them. If you are a good or bad guy, so will your gun/brick/dollar be.
As for the debate about arming all troops/pilots/doctors/etc., go for it. We have to remember that being armed was the status quo. When doctors made house calls, they carried a pistol with them, and would have a rifle on their horse. This wasn't done with the intent to harm ANYONE, rather it was to PREVENT harm coming to someone. I'm also going to borrow from Governor Mike Huckabee when I say that keeping trained military personnel from having weapons available to them is like telling construction workers that they can't carry hammers around.
As a teenager, I was going to attend a See You At The Pole rally at Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth. Thankfully, I was sick that day and had to cancel. I still remember our youth group pastor asking me three times to change my mind because he wouldn't have enough youth to attend and cancelled everyone from our church from going. That night, a deranged man who had mental issues for years that no one reported, walked in and killed 7. He didn't go in on a sunday morning, he waited for the maximum number of unarmed people to be gathered together. In military planning terms, he wanted a "Target Rich Environment." This same principal drives these mass murderers. They pick a target that they know well, that they know is a gun-free zone, and that they know will have the largest number of unarmed people within it. They pick theaters(Batman), government buildings(Oklahoma City), their schools (that they know the layout of and areas where people congregate are)(Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.), and now the military bases where they know that everyone will comply with the gun laws. Duke is spot-on in his point about ratios of guards-to-targets. These people look at the rest of us as points to rack up, and they intrinsically understand that guards or the police will have response times ranging from a few minutes to half an hour. They know that in the confusion of an active shooter situation, police take almost 15 minutes to organize, locate, and then engage with shooters. The gunmen are taking advantage of the odds and stacking them in their favor. We should stop that from happening.
Sorry for making this so long...
Respectfully,
Matt Storms
By perceiving mass shooters as “maniacs”, “freaks”, “evils” bad guys, we distract ourselves from the reasons that lead them to the premeditated mass homicides in the first place. Normal people don’t arm themselves, go on a shooting spree and then commit suicide or on near the scene of the shootings. We are using mass shootings as a gun advocate issue rather than focusing our attention to the mental state of mind of these shooters
ReplyDeleteMental illness has been a strong and serious contributing factor in the majority of the latest mass shootings. Perpetrators suffered from depression, disillusion, disconnection from reality, lack of emotion (empathy).and suicidal thoughts. Shooters from Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Navy Yard and most recent For Hood shooting shared these symptoms. Do you know that the Navy Yard is a highly secured military installation with the most advanced security system? But it didn’t prevent a single armed person from entering the facility, shooting13 people and committing suicide on the scene.
Former NRA president David Keene says he is in support of providing treatment for the mentally ill but “will not go so far as to restrict gun rights, it’s crucial that the mentally ill get the treatment they need and until then they're going to get their hands on guns, on explosives, on all of the things that folks like this do.” This statement shows little regard for the prevention of gun crimes in the hands of the mentally ill; instead it is a message of gun purchase advocacy. We feel sorry you are mentally ill but please don’t let that stop you from purchasing guns. That is because mental illness cannot be detected during a gun purchase background check.
Until we focus our attention to understanding, recognizing and treating the mentally ill, we will continue to mourn new victims, lower our flags to honor them while we pass the ball blame around.
Works cited
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/17gun-control-the-view-from-the-nra