The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik wants to know:
Last night’s tragedy was also the grotesque reductio ad absurdum of the claim that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There were nothing but good guys and they had nothing but guns, and five died anyway, as helpless as the rest of us.
Once again, the difference in policy views is clear, and can be coolly stated: those who insist on the right to concealed weapons, to the open carrying of firearms, to the availability of military weapons—to the essentially unlimited dissemination of guns—guarantee that the murders will continue. They have no plan to end them, except to return fire, with results we know. The people who don’t want the regulations that we know will help curb (not end) violent acts and help make them rare (not non-existent) have reconciled themselves to the mass murder of police officers, as well as of innocent men and women during traffic stops and of long, ghostly rows of harmless civilians and helpless children. The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on?
I hate to sound selfish, but I’m on my side. I have a right to defend myself.
Or am I being too simplistic?
Comments
8 responses to ““Which side are you on?””
NO!
Orlando: Unarmed people shot at and 49 died.
Dallas: Armed people shot at and 5 died.
I favor an armed nation.
http://classicalvalues.com/2016/07/a-gun-rights-supporter/
MOLON LABE
I’ll second (amendment) that “No!”
And also the “Molon Labe”.
Or as some of us say: “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands.”
Technically, I’m on the side of the gun with the trigger, stock, magazine release, safety and so on.
Heh. I like a sight, too. But I do have some sight issues, I need a bit of help.
Worst case, get your service dog to spot for you.