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

tr

January 3rd, 2013
5:56 pm

This little piss ant of a publication doesn’t even deserve a response. Your first amendment rights to free speech to spew your asanine crap is only protected by the second amendment and the rights of the public to bear arms, keeping the government from dictating to it’s citizens. The public has every right to bear the same arms as that of ANY law enforcement or military for it’s protection. The biggest standing army in the world at this moment is the armed American citizens. Any legislation passed trying to disarm same will be met with grave resistance.

Joseph

January 3rd, 2013
5:56 pm

I find the comparison to a Jihadist to be slap in the face. I am a soldier and an Afghan War veteran, and as such I do not appreciate being identified with known rapists, pedophiles, misogynists, and other vermin. I am a legal and law abiding gun owner as are most American gun owners. If you you opt not to own, that’s your choice, and rightfully so, but label us as “Gun Jihadists” (No suggest label exists in the Intelligence Community) is demeaning.

In closing, I suggest that you actually spend some time researching gun ownership in America, and the Taliban. Perhaps if you studied, you might not misuse or makeup labels.

Signed,
A Disrespected Soldier and Gun Owner

Jason

January 3rd, 2013
5:55 pm

Reading some of the suggestions here makes America seem like one large insane asylum. Seriously, what is wrong with the country that it breeds so many mass murderers? What’s wrong with regulating dangerous weapons? You regulate food safety, highway safety, pharmaceutical and water quality why not guns?

CaptHowdy

January 3rd, 2013
5:55 pm

Point being is owning a gun comes with responsibilty but it is our right. How many people would have tried to stop a maniac swinging a sword? Locked in a class room with Children he could have done just as much damage to the families and children. There wasn’t anything in place to stop that type of attack either. Rather than put this all in the media leave it out and stop brandishing your pitch forks and torches don’t let them die a Martyr. If a criminal wants a gun they will always have them leaving the law abiding citzen without. The all MIGHTY dollar can get you anything these days. See how easy it was to preach at everybody from my chair. Politicians are paid to do a job that protects, not control, and dictate to the point where we are no longer a democracy but a socialist country.

Walkman

January 3rd, 2013
5:55 pm

You can tell by the authors’ name he is not from around here. He or she needs to go back home and play on their own turf. The only reason they are here is so they can write such stupid articles. If they wrote this in their own country they would be imprisoned for life or shot. And the uniformed want to keep giving up freedoms one by one. What twits!!!!!!!!

lover of freedom

January 3rd, 2013
5:54 pm

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

wow. do you honestly believe this? or the rest of your article? do you ever go anywhere? where have gun laws worked? move to a rural area and be safe or stay locked in your compound inside a beltway of a major city here in America.

concerned gun owner

January 3rd, 2013
5:51 pm

To quote Wayne LaPierre The only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Chris

January 3rd, 2013
5:49 pm

Despite the reams of empirical data provided by numerous agencies both private and federal pointing to the steady downward national trend in violent crime over nearly 3 decades, and the precipitious drop in violent crime in states which have adopted right-to-carry laws; the people of the US are listening in rapt attention to the network pundits, pop-culture icons, and snivelling politicians crow on about gun control. The old adage applies, you get the government you deserve. So America, have your bankrupt, disarmed nuetered mobocracy. See how long your bread and circuses hold out.
When we start running out of external enemies to send bombers and drones and troops after, we turn each other. We find a vulnerable group within our borders to demonize, persecute, and legislate into oblivion then thump our chests and proclaim our righteousness.

Keith

January 3rd, 2013
5:49 pm

“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.” -Parthiv Parekh

This is not a simple truth, it is a bald-faced lie. Everywhere in the US where there is gun control, where law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry guns to defend themselves, crime is rampant. Check out Chicago or Washington D.C.

Gun-Free Zones are like cheese drawing in the criminal rats.

“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.”

The author needs to elaborate on this position. It is a simple truth that we have too many mentally ill/unstable people running around, but that is not a problem created by gun-supporters or by people of the right. And gun supporters do not want them, or criminals, to have access to guns. That is why we want existing laws enforced.

“urban and black communities are more prone to violence than rural white ones.” -Parthiv Parekh

As a white gun supporter, I think that sounds pretty racist. Let law-abiding blacks carry guns, and watch the violence change.

packin' steve

January 3rd, 2013
5:48 pm

the point is to have them grow up….”gun free” zones only a benefit to bad guy. (Seems odd to remove your gun before entering the post office as most if not all of the post office shootings have been by employees. That’s one of the places I WANT to be armed!)