Let’s put up signs saying “GUNS NOT ALLOWED”, and make it company policy to fire anyone who carries a gun to work, and nobody will be able to just walk into their workplace and shoot a bunch of people. ‘Cause, you know, anyone with rage in their heart and murder on their mind will stop at the front door when they see that sign, and say, “Aw, shucks…no mass murder for me today.”
Better yet, if we only got rid of guns, like they did in Japan, then nobody would be able to wipe out their entire family anymore, or quickly kill a bunch of people in a public place, or massacre a whole bunch of school-aged kids.
Gun-free zones–whether they’re the size of a factory building, or the size of a country–are really Victim Disarmament Zones. They make life easier for the people who don’t give a wet fart about the law, and harder for those who are most in need of equalizers.
Of course, a 200lb. ex-convict doesn’t need a gun or a hammer to rape and torture a 130lb. female grad student at will. But it’s a good thing there wasn’t a gun in play, or someone could have gotten hurt, right?
Carry your guns, people. The touchy-feely folks who think that people don’t need to be able to defend themselves against such animals aren’t the ones who will shoulder your pain, your fear, and your suffering if they’re proven wrong. They won’t die in your place, and they won’t be there to comfort your family and friends when you’re dead. They’ll just shrug and use your death as a statistic to prove we need even more of their hare-brained policies. That’s because they look at “gun crime”, and they focus on the word “gun” and not the word “crime”, as if eradicating the former will also get rid of the latter. They focus on the object, not the behavior, and that’s why their approach can never work, even if you could magically make all guns disappear overnight.
There will still be those who have spent a few years at the State Penitentiary and Crime Academy, lifting weights, getting in shape, and receiving training from others like them, all in order to make them a better predator. They don’t need guns to do their jobs against women half their size, people in wheelchairs, or soft accountants stopping at the ATM after dark. That’s why gun control is never crime control, but criminal empowerment, and any politician who tries to take the gun out of grandma’s purse should be considered on the same moral level as the mugger who would steal that purse.
Gun control is people control, and the trouble is that it controls the wrong kind of people.
14 Comments
June 25, 2008 at 9:27 am
They should fire him for breaking the company’s weapons policy.
June 25, 2008 at 9:59 am
I’d like to see this in every newspaper.
June 25, 2008 at 10:10 am
Do we know what the company’s weapons policy actually is (ref, please, if so) or are we just assuming?
June 25, 2008 at 10:28 am
[...] Marko has a good post up on VDZs too. Technorati Tags: Victim Disarmament Zones,Workplace Shootings [...]
June 25, 2008 at 11:41 am
When I go to work this evening, I will pass through a door that has the infamous Ohio “no weapons/gun free zone” sign on it. I will sit for hours at my desk in a building that is open to the public. There are no armed security in the building…in fact, we don’t have security of any type. We have a “panic button” hidden under the desk, probably so the police can come and draw a chalk outline around me, after the fact.
After my shift, I will walk to my car in the dark, disarmed. Library policy says that everyone on staff at night has to leave the building together (safety in numbers)…in the event of something happening, my only hope is that I, the small, one-legged librarian, will be able to outrun the elderly overweight librarians.
June 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Gun control does not control the wrong sort of people. Currently the availablitly of guns if anything serves to contribute to crime. The fact that guns are available in our society leads to gun deaths. It seems as though your early argument shows that having no guns would help deter crime, or at least to stop larger scale violence. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons serve no purpose in our current society, Constitution or not. So at least these should be banned. Maybe have a military buy-back system. These guns could also be placed locally in secure buildings where they would be available in the event that our country was invaded or our government strong-armed by people with whom the vast majority disagree with and used to overthrow them. Irregardless of what is done with them, there should be a ban on these weapons. As to non-automatic handguns, my feeling is that they also should be banned, or put in public armories for use in a situation where militias are needed. I am not ‘touchy-feely’ as you would insinuate some anti-gun proponents are, I am just a pragmatist. You pointed out a good argument in that many criminals don’t need guns to commit crimes, but guns do make it much easier to commit a crime, and also to commit larger scale crimes. You could say criminals could use knives, but ask most people, and I am pretty sure they will say it would be much easier from a mental standpoint to shoot someone than stab someone, I think it’s a matter of stabbing being a liitle too violently intimate for most people. You point to violent criminals body-building and being able to commit further violent crimes without the need of a gun. The answer to this is stiffer jail sentences and better rehabilitaion services. OK, rehabilitation services will not rehabilitate all offenders, but stiffer sentences would serve to deter crime, or at least to keep criminals off the street for longer periods of time. I know, guns don’t kill people, people kill people; but guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Our Constitution has been amended over time to fix those issues which served to hold our socity back, and in my opinion this is another one of those issues.
June 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Just as an aside, it’s more than likely not the politician you have to worry about as much as the criminal who was unarmed and figures he can easily overtake your grandma, and grabs her purse, and now there’s a criminal attacking/robbing your grandma and he’s got a gun on him.
June 25, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Considering I basically ignored your premise, and gave you my all-gun control spiel, in regards to your ‘Guns Not Allowed’ doesn’t work idea; in the current situation, no, it probably doesn’t work. Actually I totally agree with you as gun laws currently apply. The idea of the “Guns not allowed” is no guns, so no unintentional gun discharges, etc., but if someone is going to go on a killing spree, a sign will not serve to stop them, in fact it might egg them on. The idea is great in theory, but horrible in practice. The only real way to stop guns at work is metal detectors and armed guards at the door. So I agree on the smaller issues, but I have an extremely hard time endorsing the allowance of guns in the public as a whole. Although, the one problem I do have trouble reconciling with is the use of guns for hunting, as long as one eats what they kill. (Too few animals left in this world) I can understand this completely.
June 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm
You do make some very valid points though in the ‘fool’s errand’ article.
June 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm
In his latest post, Marko already does an excellent demolition job on the pro gun control comments, so I’ll leave them alone.
Matt: Although, the one problem I do have trouble reconciling with is the use of guns for hunting, as long as one eats what they kill. (Too few animals left in this world)
In many parts of the world and regions of our own country, Man is the only keystone predator. Keystone predators play a critical role in maintaining a balanced, healthy ecosystem. Now granted, in the past we’ve driven multiple species to the brink of extinction and beyond by over-hunting. But current excessive hunting regulations are wreaking havoc by fostering over-population of deer, coyote, and nuisance marsupials and rodents, to name a few.
Too, the same sort of “hands-off nature” approach to conservation is the primary cause for the myriad forest fires in the western states.
Point is, not all animal killing and tree-felling (even for the sake of doing so) is bad. Man has to play its role in maintaining a balanced ecosystem, and leaving well enough alone doesn’t cut it.
…just my (inflation adjusted) $2.00
June 25, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Matt,
Why should I lay my life in the hands of an under-paid security guard?
What if the security guard gets killed first?
What if it’s him who goes on a shooting spree? He must be armed. How else could he stop armed attackers?
No. I have the right to stay unharmed. I can’t assign the responsibility and neither can that responsibility be taken from me. It is my right as much as it is my responsibility.
Not yours.
June 25, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Matt:
The only real way to stop guns at work is metal detectors and armed guards at the door.
That doesn’t keep guns out of prisons, why would it succeed at work?
June 26, 2008 at 9:10 pm
[...] Gun Control Laws: What He Said I?ve made the point several times that gun control laws won?t work because criminals don?t obey laws. Marko at The Munchkin Wrangler makes the same point in his post from today. As he says: ?Gun control is people control, and the trouble is that it controls the wrong kind of people.? [...]
July 5, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Spot on Marko- The old saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.