Saturday, July 21, 2012


Once again, climbing on the soapbox and talking like I know something.....

Of course the shootings at the Century 16 Theaters was a tragedy. And, we can count on anti-gunners to bathe in the blood of the victims, claiming that if we got rid of all the guns, this sort of thing would not happen. And once again, we will counter that overly simplistic argument with the facts that criminals will still have guns, and besides all that, you can't take them away. It's a right guaranteed by the Constitution. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, no one asked me.

Another fact is that our media and news obsessed world makes instant celebrities out of chickenshit wannabe assassins like James Holmes or Jared Loughner. Perhaps their mother didn't breast feed 'em or something, but they are surely warped individuals who got exactly what they wanted, and while they are mentally aberrant, I have to wonder if they aren't really fairly sane. The sort of meticulous planning that this shooting exhibited showed a fairly organized mind. Murderous, infantile and selfish, sure. Yet he managed to conceive a detailed plan and carry it out.

People like this are going to be around us forever. I wish I had a cure, or a means of detection that didn't infringe upon our personal liberties, but this does not exist. Keeping guns away from you or me wouldn't stop guys like that, unfortunately, nor does it stop MS-13 or other noted lawbreakers.

And we really don't want to muzzle the press when it comes to wallowing in the blood and anguish of the victims, and popularizing the murderers. I think the price we'd pay for stomping on the First Amendment would be more than we'd care to pay.

But one means of defense was denied to the moviegoers. The patrons of Cinemark Century Theaters, who own the Century 16, are not  allowed to carry within their businesses. They maintain "gun free zones."

What this says to me is that the various business owners fear law abiding citizens carrying guns more than they do the thought that someone with ill intent might look at their operations as an opportunity.

Well, too bad. It's our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. I'm of the opinion that if you deny the average citizen the Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, then By Gawd you oughtta be making damn sure this sort of thing never, ever happens. That means security measures, which also would logically include armed security. So, if one is to be secure in this weird world, people with guns seem to be the best antidote to people with guns. Simplistic as hell, but people without guns are always going to be subject to the predations of those who obtain them, legal or illegal.

I am for thinking that at some point, someone who has passed all the state's requirements for CCW is going to be killed or injured in a similar situation, and they're gonna be connected to some high powered lawyers. After some of these anti-gun businesses are successfully sued (and I have no delusions that this will be easy) for neglecting security after denying it to their customers, I'm for thinking the "gun free zones" might just become a thing of the past, and the odds will tip in the favor of those who want to remain safe and in control of their destinies.

I just don't see any other way out of this box.


drjim said...

Gun Free Zone = Target Rich Environment

Always has been, always will be.

The Bad Guys will ALWAYS get weapons to hunt the sheeple with, and the sheeple will always bleat for more protection, more control, more "help" from the gubmint.

Lisa Paul said...

If the only people packing were Jeffros, I'd be down with that. But I fear there are more George Zimmermans, Jared Laughners and James Holmes out there. Would there be a problem if, before you got a gun permit, you had to go through the kind of gun safety course that you gave me an abbreviation of on my blog? I don't worry so much about the lone nuts as I do the people who don't secure their guns in homes with children. Then when I lived in Maine, every winter there were at least three dozen cases of husbands blowing their wives away with shotguns. (Although we attributed that as much to the lack of sunlight as the availability of guns.)

Jeffro said...

Lisa: You are applying fears for separate issues to this problem. Husbands blowing away wives with shotguns is NOT CCW. Safety with guns at home with children has nothing to do with CCW. Is it not against the law for hubbies to blast their spouses? Exactly how did that law stop them?

As far as children - that is a parental responsibility issue. I don't care for parents who do not spend time with their children teaching gun safety, or throwing a ball with them, or whatever. I do not entertain plans of legislation forcing them to become proper parents. Which might go a long way towards reducing child abuse, if it really worked. But just making another law does not guarantee success.

All of these things are tragedies, and there are mistakes made. I still think it's irrational fear of guns - kids are killed far more in vehicle accidents due to various stupidities, but no one screams about parking the cars.

And then there is the Constitutional arguments. Vehicle rights are granted by the state, and can be taken away by same. Not guaranteed by the BOR in any way. My weapon or weapons is. Big difference. At some point, all this yammering gets to me to the point where I say "I do not care WHAT you think about it - I DO care about what rights I AM guaranteed. Deal with it."

lisa said...

Jeffro, well said! It still comes down to the fact that guns DO NOT kill people, people kill people, if it wasn't a gun, they would find some other way to kill someone! You do not need a gun to kill someone!

Bob's Blog said...

I am in agreement with you. It is not simplistic, it is obvious!