Monday, September 16, 2013


There's still a lot we don't know about the Washington Navy Yard shooting, but when right-wingers tell us that the problem is gun-free zones (as a couple of Fox commentators have already done, not to menion Alex Jones and his Infowars), what they're telling us is that we have no right to pursue policies that help make it possible for us to live, work, go to school, shop, travel from place to place, see a movie, and generally go about our business unarmed. They want to define any space where it's likely that all of the non-security people are unarmed as abnormal -- and not only abnormal, but run in an irresponsible manner. How dare you not have several armed, trained fellow employees, or fellow daycare center workers, or family members sitting around your living room! You're the problem! You're the reason we have mass shootings!

In short, gun zealots aren't standing up for freedom -- or at least they're not standing up for your freedom to live in a way they'd prefer not to. The gun-zealot movement is coercive. Gun zealots want to compel all of us to acknowledge, and arm ourselves against, the state of siege they perceive. They prefer to see the actual level of danger increase if it will make us pack heat.

They see themselves as the ones who understood before the rest of us did that society operates according to the law of the jungle -- even if the lawlessness and danger they perceive is something they helped create. They like believing that we live in a state of siege because they see themselves as the heroes in our war of all against all. They're going to save us -- not laws, not the cops. (They may say nice things about the troops or the first responders, but many of them are the same folks who have "Terrorist Hunting License" stickers on their cars. It's all about being a self-appointed hero.)

It's their fantasy. We just die in it.


Monty said...

What exactly is the argument against (officially) classifying the NRA a terrorist organization? I'm no legal scholar, but shouldn't a lunatic gun-advocacy group be treated differently than those who just want to keep the 2nd amendment?

After all, there are exceptions to Amendment 1...

Victor said...

Our gun-loons, Monty, are all FOR screaming "FIRE!" in the middle of a crowded mass shooting.

Now, what or who they hit when they fire, is a whole different kettle of fish.

Everyone pictures themselves as a hero - until reality gob-smacks them in the face.

The first ones cowering in these situations, are often the people who love guns - they know how much damage a bullet can do.

I'm tired of these gun-loons, and cowards, wanting to run around all over the place, armed - and the "rights" absolutists, who want to lecture me.

Kathy said...

Nailed it, Steve.

Glennis said...

Gun nuts always say that these things happen in "no gun" zones because the killers deliberately choose them, but I don't put any credit in the idea. They happen in places where the killers find the people they want to kill - usually their peers.

Most of these killers want to be killed ("suicide by cop") themselves, anyway, so why would they care whether the place they go is a no-gun zone or not?

I just don't think that plays into their decision. They go where they can find the people they want to kill.

Never Ben Better said...

"It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun"? And yet initial reports indicate two of the people shot were a security guard and a police officer.

Steve M. said...

I'm not sure the gunners think cops and security guards are good guys. To be a good guy, I think you have to be a private citizen living out a hero fantasy.

Mallard Filmore said... has a story right now "Police Shoot Two Innocent Bystanders in Times Square". A lawsuit was settled recently in the Los Angeles area about a (deranged) man killed by police. He was hit 12 times out of the 98 bullets fired ... golly, almost 90% of the bullets fired by well trained policemen go wild. In the Attica prison 9 hostages were killed by friendly fire.

The gun nuts have the notion that they will whip out a gun, shoot the bad guy, and be a hero. What if they miss and hit a kid? What if they shoot a hero that already shot the perp? Going down the path laid out by the gun nuts will end badly. They will not be heros, they will only add to the body count.