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

john

January 4th, 2013
1:54 pm

“We, in America, have gun fundamentalists.”

We also have name calling rabble rousers like you. Jihadists? Hardly. 99.5% of us are just hard working Americans with families we love. If you love America and Americans, why be so insulting? Jihadists indeed.

too little time

January 4th, 2013
12:40 pm

Give up on regulating a lethal weapon that routinely kills a huge number of innocent people.

What… like hammers and other blunt instruments?

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.

That is an assertion. Sorry, but while YOU think that you don’t need proof/facts, you are going to have to do far better than a mere assertion to rob folks of their constitutional rights.

The fact is, violence and mental illness are a part of our society, and guns are the enablers for those afflicted with either.

So, you would rob law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights because violence and mental illness are part of our society?

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Another version of this clever-sounding

It’s not just clever sounding…. its TRUE. One only has to look where guns have already been confiscated to prove the point.

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.

That, again , is because of the 2nd amendment. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

Jeff M

January 4th, 2013
12:28 pm

Wow, Parthivs is most ignorant diatribe I think I’ve ever read. Using the same (lack of) logic I could compare the gun ban enthusiasts to say Joseph Stalin, what they think is right, and everyone else can just die.

Richard

January 4th, 2013
11:23 am

The two authors provide a stark contrast, and in my opinion exemplify the tactics and thought behind the opposing viewpoints.

Mr. Parekh starts out his article by calling advocates of gun ownership and usage Jihadists, He paints a picture of a closed minded, backwards fanatic that is mindless, uncaring, and disingenuous. In short, he attacks the character and motives of the gun owner instead of using any kind of statistics or factual basis for his arguments (other than his own opinion that “research, experts, data or studies” are not required; any idiot could see his point of view was correct).

Mr. Kennett, by stark contrast, never once insults the opposition in his factual laying out of his case. He is matter of fact, compassionate and reasoned in his approach. Above all he is respectful in his delivery, something the contrasting piece lacks. Kudos to Mr. Kennett.

My personal experiences in life teach me that when someone cannot make the merit of their case on fact and logic, they devolve to name calling and insult. Mr. Parekh would be wise to check the tone of his delivery if he wishes his argument to be seriously considered. Throwing a few factual basis for his arguments would help, too.

It seems a bit extreme to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights just because you think a statistical anomaly might occur. We seem OK with a culture accepting the notion that a guilty man may occasionally go free, in order to give the innocent the best possible shot at avoiding unjust persecution. Why would you treat any of our other Rights any differently?

D. Hsu

January 4th, 2013
11:03 am

It seems quite commonplace when anti-gun people write articles, they often use phrases like “I don’t need research, experts, data or studies. It’s obvious…” The reality is the reason they like to ignore the research, experts, data, or studies is because every time they look at them, it upsets them that the data is not on their side.

The goal of gun control laws, or other public safety laws, is to save lives. The goal is not to reduce gun crime. The goal is not to change the way someone is killed. The goal is to reduce killing altogether. This is why it is dishonest when anti-gun people talk about gun control and “lower gun violence” and “lowering gun homicides”. Because if they start talking about “lowering all homicides”, they would have to concede the fact that all the research shows that murder rates go down as gun ownership increases. Instead, they talk about “gun murder rates”, as if someone getting killed by a gun isn’t just as dead as someone getting killed with a hammer or baseball bat.

Every year, the FBI publishes statistics on crime. Last year, and every year before that, more people were killed by hammers and bats than by rifles. Only a small fraction of murders are committed by rifles. Yet, all they can talk about is bans on scary looking rifles. Just like Congress tries to convince the public that they are fiscally conservative when they cut 1% of a massive deficit, anti-gun proponents tries to convince the public that by passing their nonsensical bans that it’s going to make a measurable difference on public safety. It’s not. It only takes tools available for self-defense out of the hands of the law abiding.

joe

January 4th, 2013
10:05 am

What Partviv fails to gasp is that the overwhelming majority of so-called “Jihadists” are determined to die to become martyrs and get to heaven where they believe they will be “rewarded” with 72 hotties. LOL. He or she also fails to grasp that the thugs who live in our country who are armed will do anything they can to rob/rape/kill their chosen victim. When that decision has been made, the best shot, no pun intended, one has to escape with their life is to severely wound or kill the thug…before he can wound or kill you.

One of the dumbest decisions England ever made was to eliminate citizen gun ownership. Now, they are all sitting ducks to the thugs who get their guns illegally no matter the consequences. We must not let that happen here, no matter how bleeding heart libs like Partviv whine and complain. Here’s a thought Partviv, if you don’t like our gun laws, move back to where ever you came from.

USC-69

January 4th, 2013
9:21 am

The Founding Fathers were thoughtful and intelligent in the way they wrote the constitution and the citizens fought hard for the Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791). All knew that the first Article (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition) could not be guaranteed unless opponents of each could be prevented from threatening or killing those with whom they disagreed. Hence, Article II, an armed ‘well-regulated militia’ was guaranteed to provide a ‘free state’. Unfortunately, we have allowed a disorganized mob of unregulated, paranoid, and frightened citizens to over-arm themselves, even concealing weapons under their clothing, so that they may jump up shooting at any moment. This significantly suppresses everyone’s freedom to speak openly, practice their religion as they see fit, publish under their own names, etc. The failure to enforce the Second Amendment has now destroyed the First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court, in final analysis, must be held accountable. Return Freedom to the United States – remove the guns.

Jesus Christ crushes NWO, DBMs

January 4th, 2013
7:16 am

@Africa—You have made some excellent point. But don’t allow these criminals to seduce you. The overwhelming majority of the weak and gullible would never surrender their weapons to the government. But here is the deal. The government has employed thousands of agents, evil men and women, to follow their dictates for the purpose of creating illusions to influence the public.

Consider the revolutions occurring around the world. The citizens are not rising up against their respective governments and leaders. But our government has employed Al-Qaeda types in every country, including ours, to create illusions to influence public and world opinion.

Americans and especially African Americans would be insane to surrender their guns to our corrupt and morally depraved leaders, government.

Amen?

JL

January 3rd, 2013
11:53 pm

At times the few are sacrificed for the benefit of the many. Gun control will never make a good and beneficial difference, many, many, more will die by other means if rights are taken and guns are banned, the sick have no bounds. Then it will be too late to go back. Now is not the time to dis-member and dishonor what made this country. Now is the time to RETURN to what made this country. Its not just second amendment rights that are at stake. We will loose all our rights if the second amendment is infringed by government. People need to read up on what is really happening as we continue to skip blindly along, unconscious of the obvious.

J. Bernard

January 3rd, 2013
11:05 pm

All the laws against guns would have prevented the Newtown tragedy. He could have used gasoline, a hammer, a kitchen knife, or his bare hands. He murdered his mother to get her guns, so you think he would not have stolen a bun or buldozer to complete his mad dream.

Do you really think confiscation of gun from honest citizens would work. Look to mexico where it is illeagle to own a gun. All the drug dealears have them.

Look how well the US GOVERNMENT takes such good care of the American Indian.

4 (four) week ago I called 911 because 2 (two) men were trying to get into my home. I was forced to greet them with my 60 year old revolver. The police arrived 12 minnutes later, from a Half mile away..

I am a trained Veteran, served 22 years to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I swore that oath in 1957, and there is no experation date attached.
I’ve taught my 14 grand children how to protect themselves if necessary and to bring home food with a 410.

We are free-citizens not slaves or subjects. The Government is to serve us, not us to serve the government.

Protect the entire Constitution as written.