Gun jihadists or armed defenders?

Moderated by Tom Sabulis

Congress appears likely to tackle some form of new gun-control legislation in the aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Today, a right-to-carry proponent writes in favor of arming school teachers and administrators, arguing that a gun-free zone designation did not, and could not, prevent the tragedy. On the other side, a local commentator says our country’s gun fundamentalism makes it impossible to create and police effective laws.

Commenting is open below Kelly Kennett’s column.

Gun jihadists spur fanaticism

By Parthiv Parekh

The Arab world has jihadi fundamentalists. We, in America, have gun fundamentalists.

Steeped in their convictions, and willing to die for it, the jihadis are indifferent about the damage they are causing to the image and spirit of Islam. American gun fundamentalists are just as indifferent to the damage they are causing to the image of America and its promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Only a degree of fundamentalism explains a complete breakdown in logic, perception and common sense that is evident in the mindless opposition to any checks and balances on gun sales and ownership. The failure to see the connection between easy access to guns, including assault rifles, and the prolific number of gun fatalities is a blind spot that only fanaticism can allow.

What could be simpler? It doesn’t need research, experts, data or studies to see a simple truth that guns will kill far more in an uncontrolled environment than in a well-regulated one.

And yet the cultural and recreational worship of firearms, a dubious fallback on the Second Amendment and a disproportionately strong NRA that holds society hostage to its agenda have made sane gun regulation a convoluted debate.

Following are some of the mindless slogans and disingenuous strategies used by gun fundamentalists in their attempts to cloud an otherwise straightforward issue.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. True. Similarly, hammers and drills don’t build houses, people do. Yet, we don’t see crews coming to a construction site without their tools. Absurd, right? But that’s what gun fanatics want us to believe about guns. The fact is, violence and mental illness are a part of our society, and guns are the enablers for those afflicted with either.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Another version of this clever-sounding but superficial sound byte is the claim that we don’t need new laws, because we can’t or won’t enforce existing ones. By that argument, if we can’t enforce speeding on our highways, should we simply remove all speed limits? And if we can’t enforce murder laws due to technicalities or a shortage of manpower or resources, should we simply make murder legal?

The NRA has done its best to prevent sane legislation from passing, then claimed that gun laws don’t work.

If gun laws aren’t working, there are two possible responses available: Fix, invest, strengthen and find ways to make them work; or, the NRA approach: Give up on regulating a lethal weapon that routinely kills a huge number of innocent people.

Columnist Thomas Sowell points out that gun ownership is higher in rural areas compared to urban ones and among whites than blacks, yet the murder rate is lower in rural areas and in white communities compared to urban areas and black communities. Does that mean communities should increase gun ownership to reduce gun deaths? Hardly. If anything, the scenarios described above only point to the fact that urban and black communities are more prone to violence than rural white ones. And so, there is more reason, not less, to strengthen the regulation and enforcement surrounding the purchase and ownership of firearms in these communities.

NRA sympathizers love to cherry-pick examples of situations where an armed civilian may have foiled the plans of an armed perpetrator and in the process even saved a life or two. But for every such incident, there are many more where the bad guys have won.

A clear indication of the fundamentalism surrounding guns is that laws that would thwart criminals and the mentally unstable, and do nothing to restrict the legal use of firearms, are robotically opposed.

Prayers and talk of healing have been abundant in response to Sandy Hook, our latest in a long line of national tragedies inflicted by guns. But there can’t be much healing or a sense of safety if we are not prepared to do something to counter the gun fundamentalism that plagues our society.

Parthiv Parekh is editor of Khabar magazine, based in Norcross. A version of this column appears in this month’s issue of the magazine.

Armed citizens best defense

By Kelly Kennett

The recent events in Newtown, Conn., are a stark reminder that evil exists in this world. Like other parents, grandparents and citizens, we at GeorgiaCarry.org are horrified by these senseless killings of precious children. The people of good will in this great nation do not want to sit helplessly by while events like these unfold; they want to do something. Our first instincts to take action to protect the innocent and defenseless are a reflection of the finest values of Americans.

In response to this desire to take action, we as a nation will have in the coming weeks and months a collective discussion regarding how to prevent such violence in the future. A person prepared to slaughter innocent children and take his own life is not deterred by laws. These actions instead speak to a basic lack of respect for the lives of others. A part of prevention will certainly involve an examination of our current culture and how it may permeate the world view and decision-making of those who would wreak such havoc.

At GeorgiaCarry.org, we are in favor of taking public actions that have a reasonable likelihood of making a difference, while not infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. We believe that an armed citizenry is the best omni-present defense against acts of evil. Citizens, including teachers and school administrators, should have an opportunity to defend themselves and the children in their care against attacks. In our opinion, it is unconscionable that our present laws leave our children defenseless in school. Our schools need an armed presence prepared to resist the aggression of the violent. Part of the public discussion needs to include how, in an orderly and safe fashion, to ensure that those in schools are no longer defenseless. In the coming debate, we will offer specific proposals regarding how to make this defense a reality.

The list of laws, including gun laws, that the Newtown perpetrator broke is lengthy. Apparently unbeknownst to the shooter, the school was already a gun-free zone. Still, some have suggested that we need additional gun control laws. The details of those proposed laws vary widely but have a single consistent feature: They have no plausible chance of doing anything other than infringing upon the rights of those who pay attention to laws in the first place — that is, the law-abiding. With more than 300 million firearms in circulation in America, laws that further regulate the features of new firearms have no substantial effect on potential future active-shooter incidents. Do we really want to debate the precise number of rounds per magazine that we feel is appropriate to shoot at elementary school children? Those who propose new gun restrictions apparently want to do just that.

Finally, as we move forward, we should be ever mindful of the nature of rights. You have no right at all if its continuance depends upon the good conduct of others. Your right to speak and write freely cannot depend on what others may say. Your right to worship as you please cannot depend on what worship others find acceptable. Your right to be free from warrantless searches in your home cannot depend on whether others keep illegal things in theirs. The right to keep and bear arms is no different. We would tread a dangerous path in this country if we begin picking and choosing the rights we individually prefer to limit.

Kelly Kennett is president of the board of directors of GeorgiaCarry.org.

72 comments Add your comment

Tony

January 3rd, 2013
5:47 pm

Sad world we live in.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will NOT stop this type of tragedy from happening.
Maybe we should make it illegal to kill someon in this country?
In this country over 2 million persons were helped because someone had a firearm.
Since our media no longer prints the truth in regards to weapon ownership, many of us are left with half truths or just lies like the writer of this article just printed.
I teach defensive driving and vehicles kileed almost Forty Thousand persons last year and injured over two million of our citizens.
Unfortunately, our media does not report this fact and so the cry does not go out for the confiscation of our vehicles, at least not yet.
I’m afraid that taking away our weapons will bring on the second Civil War in our country.

Kyle

January 3rd, 2013
5:47 pm

Nice article! I liked how you used logical examples for each side of the argument and were not compelled to identify with one extreme solution or another. This event is truly difficult and unfortunately is further complicated by multiple issues spanning from constitutional rights to healthcare to bureaucratic processes.

not as dumb as parthiv parekh

January 3rd, 2013
5:46 pm

There is the push in his idiotic article! The swap from the bad guys being al-cia-da to the american gun owners/soldiers/good ol boys is being made. Gun owners will be dragged through the mud as the “new terrorists” parthiv is a Tvvat.

No red blooded american will turn in their arms. Refer to Ghandis quote about disarming a nation. IT INVITES TYRANNY.

SmoothWaters

January 3rd, 2013
5:46 pm

In the aftermath of CT shooting Ive never seen more Pro gun pictures on Facebook..I just dont get it…

Guest

January 3rd, 2013
5:45 pm

It may be that the person writing this article is not derived from the culture in America, and so doesnt understand the differences in how our country was brought to be, a history lesson may be in order.
That “Life” and “Liberty” he speaks of was paid for how? And this author may need to check some of the statistics, as most murders are not committed with guns that are legal, so how is law going to enforce that anyways. That is one thing you get with freedom, the freedom to do something wrong.

steve m

January 3rd, 2013
5:45 pm

“Only a degree of fundamentalism explains a complete breakdown in logic, perception and common sense that is evident in the mindless opposition to any checks and balances on gun sales and ownership. ”

checks and balances? checks and balances are for OUR GOVERNMENT, in an attempt to minimize corruption. ironically, one of these checks IS the 2nd amendment.

further, there should be no checks and balances on RIGHTS. idiot.

Rod Livingston

January 3rd, 2013
5:39 pm

And do the teachers need to wear bullet proof vests to increase their survivability while they shoot it our with the attackers? And should their weapons be on a par with would be attackers – large magazine assault rifles? What will the message be to the students – arm yourself to the teeth?
What will those students grow up to be?

Jeff M

January 3rd, 2013
5:32 pm

“American gun fundamentalists are just as indifferent to the damage they are causing to the image of America and its promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Don’t you see the irony in this comment? If you want to talk about a breakdown in logic… just look right here!

Alexander Mackenzie

January 3rd, 2013
5:30 pm

Actually, I believe many of those gun owners that have legally acquired their handguns and rifles and shotguns , many having also acquired carry permits, or traceable from past hunting license’s would fight violently any national confiscation effort by police or army. And those that have illegally stolen or black market guns wouldn’t be affected anyways. The President says he would not go after guns presently legally owned, so any weapons not sold after a law banning them does what? Feel good but change nothing from right now really. But, outlaw the use of all extended clips, that would affect all semi-auto rifles, all semi-auto pistols, and put real punishment laws for their use would have an immediate affect. Have a turn in program for at least a one on one swap program for clips illegal for legal. Now, as you know, I feel laws (ie: words) really are for punishment after a criminal act is done. So no matter what, evil will have access to whatever it needs to do evil, at least illegally. So with all my words about safety not being done with “a don’t do that law”, professional armed personnel a schools is the only real way to create immediate protection while waiting for a better way to become a reality (and I have no idea at present what that “way” could be). Redneck Bro

Me

January 3rd, 2013
5:30 pm

Why not turn those classroom closets into panic rooms? Seems like the most effective solution to the problem to me.