US House is going to vote today on a resolution to condemn the Arizona shooting.

Question #1. Why is this shooting somehow more horrific or deserving of more attention or special-casing than other shootings and murders that happen every day?

Then there’s this:

[U.S. Senate Sergeant-At-Arms Terrance] Gainer said he does not believe more members of Congress should carry guns. “Violence prevention is a very difficult matter. Preventing homicides is very difficult. I think every chief and sheriff across the nation is trying to figure out how best to do that. Putting more guns in the mix is not the answer. It may be part of a solution to have more police, more law enforcement. But we shouldn’t just turn to guns as the how to end violence,” he said.

But you see, more police, more law enforcement…. they are only considered for the mix because they have guns! If you put more police in the mix, you are putting more guns into the mix. Or if you want, how about removing the guns from the belts of those police and put them into the mix. Will that still achieve your desired effect? No. You want more police in the mix because they have guns.

What you’re saying is you want more of a police state. You want more nannies to watch over us. You don’t want the allow the citizenry to be empowered. Because I tell you, no matter how many more police you put into the mix, it will never be enough. Police can’t be everywhere to protect us all.

Oh wait… you’re not interested in protecting us all. Just your elite selves.

I see.

Building on my previous post about how knee-jerk legislative reactions don’t solve problems, we have yet another knee-jerk legislative reaction that won’t solve the problem:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions.

[…]

It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King’s legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

Full article here, at the HuffPo.

Interesting choice of reasoning. It would offer government officials the same protection as schools. Well… we’ve seen how well that “schools are a gun free zone” has worked. How is it that Rep. King things “the same protection” would actually be of any good? How will it stop crazy people from going crazy?

Furthermore, why is it that these politicians think they need some sort of special protection? What about the rest of us? Why are they so much more special than the rest of the citizenry? Inflated sense of self-worth?

I’ll leave you with a statement from John Green, the father of the 9-year-old girl that was slain in the same incident:

This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.

We don’t need King, Lautenberg, McCarthy, Feinstein, trying to pound through knee-jerk emotion-driven legislation… because they will drive us towards that alternative.

A Virginia Delegate wants to ban firearms from the state Capitol and General Assembly building. Of course, it’s a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Arizona.

“The tragedy this weekend in Tucson should cause all public officials to re-examine the safety and security of themselves, their staff, and visitors,” [Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington)] said in a statement.

I will agree with that statement, but I will differ upon the means to the end.

How is disarming the law-abiding citizenry going to improve things? Show me the concrete evidence that supports this as an actual solution that succeeds in meeting the desired goal.

If you ban firearms, fine. Is this going to stop a criminal or some crazy guy hell-bent on destruction? Nope. By definition those folks don’t obey the law, so how would such a law help prevent things like what happened to Rep. Giffords?

 

Hope, who is in his second year in the legislature, said he was taken aback last year when he first found himself riding the elevator with a man who had a gun strapped to his leg.

“I felt very uncomfortable and very uneasy,” he said in an interview.

 

 

Ah. I see. You felt uncomfortable. So your lack of understanding, your ignorance, is why we should all be subject to your viewpoint of the world. I see.

Hope continues:

 

 

He said he drafted the bill several weeks ago, before the events in Arizona, but said they illustrate why such a move would be smart.

“We’ve got take every prudent action to protect ourselves, our staff and the public,” he said. “Look at airports, look at Congress, look at federal courthouses. They’ve been able to pass these. Why are we any different?

 

But look at airports. They have some of the highest “security” measures in the world, but it doesn’t stop things from getting through nor “bad things” from happening. Look at Congress and courthouses. That they don’t permit it doesn’t stop criminals, it doesn’t stop crazy.

Hope said his bill would not make it a crime to bring a gun to the legislature but would direct Capitol Police to help gun owners check their weapons at the doors before entering. It would also exempt members of the legislature from the ban.

Oh, that’s even worse. First, they can still bring guns but then the guns have to be checked. That’s a bad idea. The more you fiddle with a loaded gun, the more you risk a negligent/accidental discharge. You load the gun, you put it into the holster, and you leave it there and don’t touch it. Any time you touch it you raise the chances of the gun going bang when you didn’t want it to go back. Case in point? just keep reading the article!