“One of my fellow police chiefs made a comment one time that more guns isn’t the answer. When I said to him, ‘then what is your answer because we’ve tried everything else…’ there’s generally a blank look on the individual’s face, because they don’t’ have an alternative.” – Former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch quoted in Missouri bill would allow teachers with guns [via ksdk.com]
I don’t think you understand how this utopia thing is supposed to work…
Whenever my fellow gun owners are perplexed as to why the disarmament crowd says and does all the illogical, irrational things we hear and see, I tell them it can be explained in six words: There are no guns in Utopia.
That depends on your definition of Utopia. Since everybody seems to think it means “good place,” which actually would be, “eutopia,” it means “no place.” If we do what most people do, and equate it to “Paradise,” then in my version of Paradise, everybody who wants a gun has one, and the ones who don’t want them don’t have to have them, and the people don’t have to have anything to do with each other that they don”t want to do together. Live and let live.
It is a fact that every Utopian scheme relies in the end on an autocratic tyranny to survive, and that autocracy MUST have the means (weapons) to enforce the Utopian ideal, since in no case is it based on a real-world reality involving liberty and freedom to pursue your own life as you see fit. At some point the rulers must use force to suppress dissent, which their system cannot and will not tolerate.
The imagery is that in Utopia everyone has all the worldly goods he needs (not that he WANTS), provides his services free of other charge to the state based on what the state thinks is his best contribution (not his own desires), and everyone has all the free Unicorn meat they can eat (and the Unicorns don’t mind).
There is no way such an artificial society can survive without top-down suppression aand enforcement of the societal dictate. That means: Unicorn meat for you, yes. Guns for you – No f-ing WAY!
I love the anti-argument that guns are bad, but never have constructive ideas to fix any real problems except, ban guns. For the children!
It’s funny, I’ve had a few conversations with anti-gunners and I ask them if they can agree that it’s possible that crime might go down if gun laws are reduced/eliminated. They never do. Even though I concede that it’s possible, though it goes against all evidence, that crime may go down if all privately owned firearms are confiscated.
Lets me know, not that I didn’t already, that logic is not being used in their discussion.
See Northern Ireland.
Fitch is a good guy. Word is that his successor shares a lot of his policies. I do everything via trust now but his office would rubber stamp NFA sign-offs in about twenty minutes.
I’ve never met the man, myself, but his department was cordial with me, when I applied for my CCW. They also charged no fee for CCW renewals. I sure hope they keep that policy! (Until we have Constitutional carry, of course.)
Why “former”? I hope he decided not to run, as opposed to was defeated. He sure as hell SOUNDS like a good guy.
From a woman in the video:
“Using a gun I don’t take lightly, and I don’t allow a gun in my home for that reason.”
I don’t take using power tools, driving, ladder safety, or working on electrical appliances lightly either. I just make sure I’m well informed and responsible about it. Is this woman really suggesting that the only things she allows in her home are things she takes lightly? Does she have a fireplace? A swimming pool? Stairs? Does she take strapping in her toddler’s car seat lightly? Her view has nothing to do with safety, responsibility, or proper education. She just doesn’t like guns.
She also says “I’m obviously very concerned about the safety of our kids.” Her definition of obvious must be different than mine, because if she were that concerned then I’d think she’d want to be ready to defend her children with the most effective means necessary.
That comment threw me, as well. I agree that if she doesn’t think she can handle the responsibility of a gun then she, personally, should probably choose not have a gun; however, that’s no reason for her to be arguing against other people, strangers who she doesn’t even know, being permitted by a school to carry guns.
She shouldn’t take guns lightly…but along those lines madam…
you shouldn’t take driving lightly, put away the cell and concentrate on what you are doing since you are much more likely to be in an auto mishap than a gunshot wound.
Perhaps you should take voting more seriously, since who you select may send your kid to war and not come home.
I could go on regarding the actions that people take lightly that have consequences, yet it is gun ownership that seems to be the one that really weighs heavy on them…not the other ways they can take,..or create life…
Anti’s are not looking for an answer to stopping crime their objective is to outlaw guns. I appreciate that Fitch has the respect for his fellow man to allow him to take a stand if and when that time would come.
Tell the dumba###s to pony up $ for an armed “official like” guard in EVERY classroom. For the children. I’ll bet there’s no takers.
Answer is more guns. There were alot of car jacking in Dallas in the 80’s but number dropped like a rock after Texas passed conceal law. Most BGs are looking for an easy target.
US homeland was not a target for invasion WWII, cause “behind every blade of grass, is a rilfle”. Not a bad perception to project
Some punk tried to rob me in Dallas, all I had to do was clear leather on my snubby and he had a change of heart.
Funny how that works.
It’s not even necessarily having more guns per se`, but being able to take the guns we already have along with us wherever we may go on our daily business.
That and having the opportunity to buy whatever kinds of guns we can afford should the opportunity present itself. But, that’s a whole ‘nother rant.
Yep. If you complain about the problem but don’t offer a solution, you’re just bitching.
That honesty is why charlie dooley started phucking w Fitch’s budget and made him decide to retire. Payback this fall charlie. Payback
Never did like that sumbitch. Vote the bastards out, as the saying goes.
‘then what is your answer because we’ve tried everything else”
Sounds just like the episode of the Simpson’s where Ned ends up in the looney bin due to issues with his beatnik parents. A young Ned with his parents are in the Shrink’s Office and Ned’s father says “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.”
More guns are not the answer. Its a combination of background checks, harsher penalties for those who use guns in crimes, and the ability to keep them locked up & away from society.
The pool of people considering robbing the corner gas station or liquor store will shrink if they know they’re facing a minimum guaranteed 20 years in prison for merely committing an armed robbery. Make it 50 if they discharge the firearm during said robbery. A 20 year old POS who takes a shot at the lowly cashier after he robs the store would be released back into society at age 70 and would be very unlikely to be physically able to do it again….hopefully his children or grandchildren can take care of him in his waning years because he hasn’t paid into a 401k or SS during his time in prison.
“More guns are not the answer. Its a combination of background checks, harsher penalties for those who use guns in crimes, and the ability to keep them locked up & away from society.”
Don’t forget Gun Free Zones! Those have worked just as well as your three proposals.
And none of these proposals ever WILL satisfy the left, regardless of the results. Because it’s not about crime, it’s about getting rid of the status quo.
If you watch lefties long enough, you’ll consistently see them simultaneously take both sides of the issue. This is why you get articles in leftist rags that simultaneously bemoan both the crime rate and the incarceration rate in the US. Or they simultaneously bemoan the amount of military spending in the US and the cutting of Veteran’s benefits. Or they simultaneously bemoan corporate America being profitable and poor economic growth in the US.
It’s been said before but it’s still true: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
These people are complaining about gun crime as the rate is at a 20 year low. They are not interested in solutions. They are interested in getting their way, like children throwing a tantrum.
Mandatory “10, 20, life” sentencing for gun crimes in Florida turned that state into a crime free utopia…
Nope, no gun crime there :\
Yea we see how well that worked. When i lived in Tallahassee in ’93, there was always someone getting shot or stabbed or a car stolen or a break in going on almost nightly. Maybe we should all try strapping one on and actually be ready to defend ourselves. See how that works for a while.
In a world of Unicorns and Pixies, everyone will get along and make sure their neighbor has all they need and doing fine. In the real world we must be ready to kill the stupid s**t that tries to take our lives. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Criminal penalties are not a deterrent to crime; go into any prison in the US and ask the felons there if they were deterred from committing a crime because they might end up in prison for years or even for life. I have little doubt that the answer will be a uniform “no.” Criminal penalties only punish, not deter. Armed self defense deters.
Well, incarceration also “incapacitates”–that is, while they are locked up they can’t be robbing the corner mini-mart. I think Grumpy has a point on that one.
Except that it can be shown – empirically – that harsher penalties for crimes have a very steep rate of diminishing returns. Someone who is willing to commit armed robbery, knowing they might face jail time, is usually no more deterred by a possible 10 year sentence than a 3 year one. Most of the time they don’t even really know what the punishment is for their particular crime.
You do realize that background checks don’t stop criminals from obtaining weapons, right? They might redirect them to another source (an illegal one). They certainly don’t stop them.
Harsher penalties for those who commit violent crimes? Sure, ok. Your suggestions would probably be deemed unconstitutional (cruel & unusual punishment). But keeping violent offenders in prison longer is not a bad idea.
But enabling people to stop the criminal before the crime is committed (by restoring the right to carry firearms in more public places) is even better than having a person become a victim of a violent crime. Some criminals will not be deterred, regardless of the potential consequences (see RockOnHellChild’s comment). The only thing that will stop them is if their would-be victim defends themselves (or a bystander helps defend them).
And much of the time, the most effective way to do that is with a firearm.
Totally agree, and I know I will catch hell for this but I don’t really care. If we stop worrying about the criminal’s rights and comfort in a jail cell and just concentrate on keeping our streets clean of criminals, we might actually make a difference. Or as I like to put it, lock the f****r up and throw away the key. Jail overcrowded? Oh well, don’t do the crime if you don’t like doing time.
Your penalty suggestions are incredibly expensive. Figure about $25,000-38,000 per year for each and every individual in jail or prison. And even after you spend all that money, the records for backgrounds checks are still inaccurate. I have personal experience with a purchase of a .338 Lapua rifle delayed for almost 4 weeks due to a background check issue. My criminal records consists of two speeding tickets (which I deserved).
Constitutional carry is a much cheaper and more effective option.
But thats nuts. IF I am facing 50 years.. the first thing I do is kill all the witnesses. Is that not blindingly obvious?
More Guns in the RIGHT hands IS the answer!
Yeah, that was beautiful. Awesome words.
Comments are closed.