Politics

Just one child

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I love my children. I’ve apparently been blessed with a talent for teaching, especially with children. I take my work with children very seriously, especially when it comes to protecting them: both my direct protection of them when they are within my care, and teaching them how to care for themselves.

A common line of reasoning you hear these days is “if it saves/helps/protects/aids/etc. just one child, then it’s worth it.”  No, I’m sorry but that’s not a sound line of reasoning. Is abridging the rights of millions of people the right thing to do if it might save just one child? So injure millions to save one? I’m not saying it’s welcome to injure the one, but life isn’t perfect and without pain, and I just don’t believe it’s right to save one and injure millions… the math doesn’t add up for me.

The past few days the gun blogging community has been talking about this particular blogger and their interactions with her. Here’s one of her posts, and as an example of gun blogger responses, I give you SayUncle’s response to her particular posting.

I agree with Catherine. That is a horrible story, and it breaks my heart that an innocent 2 year old child was killed through negligence. And what’s worse, it appears the negligence is on the part of the parents. I agree those parents should be held accountable for their actions.

What I don’t agree with is Catherine’s final statement:

I could show hundreds of statistics on why tough gun control laws should be strictly enforced, but the best argument is that one child’s death is too many.

(And I gotta agree with SayUncle, show those statistics, and be sure to answer Just One Question while you’re at it). The thing is, there are already laws on the books about this (e.g. Texas Penal Code §46.13). But how is enforcement going to prevent such things? The law is now only going to apply after the fact. This isn’t to say the law shouldn’t be enforced, but passing more laws won’t stop more death. What will stop more death? Call for increased responsibility. Call for education. Accept no less.

Take a look at the NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe program. This is a fantastic program that teaches children if they come across a firearm to:

  1. Stop
  2. Don’t touch
  3. Leave the area
  4. Tell an adult

Drill that mantra into your children. Even if you detest guns above all things, don’t leave your child ignorant; they may encounter a gun at some point in their life – give them at least the minimal knowledge necessary to keep them alive. If you wish to go above that, teach them the basic rules of gun handling safety (source: Jeff Cooper, Commentaries, Vol. 11 No. 4, 2003):

  1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1).
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60% of inadvertent discharges.
  4. Identify your target and what’s behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified.

This doesn’t mean you have to teach your child how to handle a firearm, but safety rules are always good things to teach (e.g. walk on the left side of the road, facing traffic; keep your fingers curved back when slicing vegetables). And teaching respect for the power of a gun is worthwhile — they are tools, not toys. We agree that education is so important, we teach our children the dangers of strangers, drugs, alcohol, sex, but for some reason our society accepts ignorance about guns. How does that keep our children safe?

But on the same token, we have to accept that the world isn’t a perfect place. We have to accept there are and always will be people that are going to do stupid and irresponsible things, or just make mistakes (and I believe each and every one of us is guilty of this in our past and will be again in the future… such is being a human; if you’re perfect, please drop me a line!). But we don’t have to be complacent with this either. Instead of abridging people, why not teach them? educate them? lift them up?

 

Updated: For those that like statistics, here are some.

On Sarah Palin

/ hsoi

Via Instapundit via The Volokh Conspiracy, The Meaning of Sarah Palin.

The crux of the article is something I felt throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign: one of intellectual elitism. I dealt with this a great deal back in undergrad (and somewhat in my K-12 years and in grad school), and it always turned my stomach. I believe if you want to be a big person, build yourself up; don’t cut others down.

Freedom defined

/ hsoi

From Ron Paul:

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

National Reciprocity

/ hsoi

From SayUncle.

Here’s the text of S.371. 

I have to say that the notion of national reciprocity is a bit of a mixed issue for me. On the one hand I like it because I think it clears up a lot problems, but on the other it feels like it starts to infringe upon a State matter. But then one can also argue that there’s no problem in honoring the marriage licenses from other States, the drivers licenses from other States, and various other licenses. So why should concealed carry licenses be any different? And I’d have to agree with that.

I like the wording of Sen. Thune’s bill. It clears up problems yet still allows States to have control.

Time to drop a line to Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Hutchison.

My politics

/ hsoi

I’d rather discuss religion than politics, but here we are. 🙂

As far back as I can remember, I’ve somehow been involved in politics. My father has been an elected public servant in numerous offices throughout most of my life. And I think it’s because of this that I have some draw to politics and political involvement, but I also just can’t stand it because it’s hit rather close to home in ways that most people never experience and can’t fully understand. If I ever go into politics, it won’t be until after my kids are grown and out of the house. 

I may have been raised in a Republican household with conservative ideals, but I’ve moved around the political spectrum in my life. My time in undergrad probably moved me more towards the left, but I think it also pushed me more towards true conservative ideals because being around all those “open minded” people showed me just how closed minded and self-centered folks can be. I guess going “right” was my rebellion 😉

These days tho, I find great disgust with both established political parties. 

  • The Democrats want to legislate compassion, and use our money to do it.
  • The Republicans want to legislate morality, and use our money to do it.

While I see nothing wrong with compassion or morality, I don’t think the force of law should be involved. And if my money is going to be used for moral or compassionate causes, I’d like to control what causes my money funds. The two big political parties want more government, both want to intrude more into your life, both are just corrupt as hell. Maybe they have good intentions, but that’s what paves the road to Hell. I didn’t like Bush and what he, his administration, and the Congress of the last 8 years botched up. So far I do not like what Obama is doing, nor what Pelosi and crew in Congress are up to either. Obama ran on a platform of not being the same as Bush, but all he’s done so far is demonstrate that he’s the same – maybe his corruptness is different, but it’s still corrupt. 

If there’s any political group I’d affiliate myself with, it’d be Libertarians. The main reason? I like that US Constitution and think that those that swear to uphold it ought to. My country is a Republic; we grant that some law is necessary to maintain order and allow people to live freely and prosper. But when government gets too big, too intrusive, when it goes beyond its Constitutionally set boundaries, I have a problem with that. See my posting about simplicity; we don’t need more laws, we need to simplify.

For me, it’s about being left alone. Do you like it when people stick their nose in your business? Do you like people bugging you all the time? Do you like people telling you what to do, or forcing you to do things you don’t like? I don’t. And it’s simple. I’ll leave you alone to live your life. All I ask in return is you leave me alone to live my life. Have some respect and consideration for each other, and just leave things alone. 

Freedom is letting things be. (Brian Enos)