by Big Dog on Sep 17, 2004 at 14:30 Political
Several years ago a few deranged teens went in to a high school in Columbine CO and killed teachers and students. There has been an outcry by those opposed to gun ownership and the second amendment that this would not have happened if all guns were outlawed. If this “logic” were true then there would be no cocaine use because possession of cocaine is outlawed! The problem with people who believe this is that they are blaming an inanimate object for the conscious actions of thinking beings. People are responsible for their actions. The republican party has espoused this idea for some time but those on the left insist that people are not responsible for what they do. They are not accountable if they spill hot coffee in their laps, get cancer from tobacco use, or get fat from fast food. It is always someone or something else’s fault.
I believe that people are responsible for their actions. These teens were solely responsible for their criminal acts. It is illegal for teens to own those types of firearms. They obviously obtained them illegally. Yes, they broke the law. This makes sense, criminals do not obey the law, that is why they are criminals. Gun laws are only obeyed by people who have a regard for the law of the land. What happened at Columbine was terrible and the Michael Moores of the world would have you believe that this could have been prevented if there were no guns. I say hogwash. We do not need gun control, we need criminal control. There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Yet, in places where gun control is the strictest, gun crimes escalate. New York, Baltimore and DC are prime examples. If gun laws work so well why was President Reagan shot in DC, a place with some of the toughest gun laws in the land. Explain why gun related crimes (and crime in general) is lower in areas where law abiding citizens are allowed to own, and if they please, carry firearms.
Now we are learning that the police in Columbine knew that one of the teens involved had been making pipe bombs and had a history of anti-social behavior. Why did they not act on that information? I say that if the police had acted this might not have happened. It certainly makes more sense than the lack of guns would have prevented it.
In the aftermath of Columbine the police and the public denounced gun ownership and told us that the evil guns were responsible. Why did they not tell everyone about their knowledge of this boy’s history? Why are documents relating to this information missing?
I think it is because this information would have derailed their efforts to make all gun owners look bad because of the actions of a few criminals.
Like I’ve stated, this was a terrible incident, but the police are as much to blame in this because they did not act appropriately. The blowhard (Michael Moore) made a film that shows how bad it was these kids got guns. I did not see the film but I’ll bet he never mentioned the information known to the police. He would not have even if he had it because it would not fit his agenda.
Remember, people are responsible for their actions. Blaming a gun for the murder is like blaming the arson on the match.
What we need in our country is criminal control. We can start by having police follow up on important information and then getting criminals off the streets and keeping them off.
Print This Post