But Sgt. Nick Muyo, public information officer for the San Jose Police Department, believes more violence is exactly what could happen, and cautions against any inklings towards vigilantism.
Why is it, when normal, everyday citizens talk about arming themselves for self-defense, some of those in Law Enforcement or the anti-rights groups like the Brady Campaign, call it vigilantism? Ok, granted, the people in the story linked by the title above, may not qualify as normal by most of the straight community, but still. This is a problem I have seen repeated again and again.
Here's another example, from April 24, of this year (2008).
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin this morning led a group of two dozen public officials, business leaders and workers in a plea directed at Sonny Perdue, asking the governor to veto a gun bill that would permit licensed concealed weapons to be carried on public transportation, in restaurants that serve alcohol, and in parks.
Prospects of vigilantism were raised by MARTA head Beverly Scott. And MARTA workers said they’re already passing around a petition to demand bullet-proof partitions for bus drivers and train operators should Perdue sign the bun bill into law.
Why is it, that defending one's self, a Basic Human Right, is seen as vigilantism? I guess it's one of the few arguments the anti-self defense crowd has left that they think will sway those who sit on the fence regarding this issue. Even in the "Old West" they knew the difference between self defense and vigilantism.
And speaking of the old west, I also get tired of that comment, when anti-rights people claim a "return to the old/wild west" with blood in the streets and such. If you check the actual statistics for the "wild west" you'll find that other than the Indian wars, crime was much lower than it is today. Old Dodge City was imminently safer than modern day Chicago. It's too bad we can't return to at least the crime rate of the old west.
Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Walther P-38
4 comments:
Stuff on alternet is simply too divorced from reality and just isn't worth reading. They'll basically publish anything that agrees with the political ultra-left.
It's pretty clear that the gun control crowd is irate and irrational. Almost without exception their claims are based on paranoid fantasies which they desperately cling to in spite of irrefutable data.
The article dealt mostly with the Pink Pistols, and in general, I think it was a good article. I suggest you read it fully, and then comment on it. The comment I was responding to, was made by a police officer that they interviewed for the article.
Calling gun-owners scary names like "vigilante" is but a propaganda tactic, and a good one.
It is an appeal to fear. This is one of the most effective propaganda tactics of all.
1. Convince the people that they are in immediate danger: "These vigilantes are running around with sniper rifles and assault weapons, in our peaceful streets around our children." (Note the key words in that sentence)
2. Tell the people of a proposed solution: "We need more gun control. We need to protect our innocent little children."
3. Convince the people that this solution will be effective and within reach: "If nobody has guns, nobody can shoot little children. It will stop crime!!! We can do this. We just need to pass this bill, and your children are safe."
And it's that simple. You don't even need to use proper logic when dealing with an appeal to fear. As sure as you convince them that it is urgent, and they will sign over any freedoms they have.
And, as Ben Franklin would say: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Calling gun-owners scary names like "vigilante" is but a propaganda tactic, and a good one.
It is an appeal to fear. This is one of the most effective propaganda tactics of all.
1. Convince the people that they are in immediate danger: "These vigilantes are running around with sniper rifles and assault weapons, in our peaceful streets around our children." (Note the key words in that sentence)
2. Tell the people of a proposed solution: "We need more gun control. We need to protect our innocent little children."
3. Convince the people that this solution will be effective and within reach: "If nobody has guns, nobody can shoot little children. It will stop crime!!! We can do this. We just need to pass this bill, and your children are safe."
And it's that simple. You don't even need to use proper logic when dealing with an appeal to fear. As sure as you convince them that it is urgent, and they will sign over any freedoms they have.
And, as Ben Franklin would say: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Post a Comment