Arm yourselves with scissors

Imagine carrying out your daily routine, perhaps sitting in class, putting in hours at work, or enjoying dinner with someone special—but, then the unthinkable happens: you find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal’s gun barrel.

The only means of defense at your disposal are a pair of scissors and a chair; even the security guard quivering behind you is unarmed, not to mention everyone else in the vicinity.

This is the scene painted by the Department of Homeland Security in an ‘informational’ video on how to protect oneself against a gunman. Taking the administration’s gun control efforts into consideration, it suggests alternatives to firearm protection such as running, hiding, and taking out mass murderers with scissors in a world where only the police are armed.

These are viable tips should no one have a gun—but, what is discomforting about this video is its implication that it isn’t necessary for citizens to carry guns. Instead of illustrating a world that could survive without armed civilians, it unintentionally showcases what is wrong with that picture: the madman is armed, the upstanding citizens are not. I flinched every time they cut to a victim and wondered how many lives could have been spared if just one of them had a gun, especially the security guard in the background.

While the idea of gun regulation and bans seems noble, they simply do not work.

Criminals already utilize unregistered guns or those stolen from a legal owner, such as the Newton shooter using his mother’s guns; regulation will make no difference in those cases.

In fact, it seems stricter regulations lead to more violence. Aurora, Colo. and Newton, Conn., the cities where the latest United States massacres took place, have some of the strictest gun laws in their respective states.

Another example is England’s gun laws, which are some of the strictest in the world but have failed to influence crime rates. Such regulations include having potential gun owners undergo a grueling process to prove they are trustworthy enough to bear arms. Many aren’t granted certification under the circumstance they have a criminal record or were institutionalized.

In addition to banning certain types of gun, harsh regulations are placed on the selling of all guns, thus making it nearly impossible to easily acquire a legal firearm. In any case, this initiative has done little to curb crime rates in England as illegal guns still circulate in abundance and criminals have gained confidence in knowing many civilians aren’t armed.

In addition to viewing gun control as ineffective, I am turned off by the manner in which its advocates make their case. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel condemned the National Rifle Association for suggesting all schools should have armed guards, yet his children attend such a school. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was pictured giving a presentation on gun control in which she used a gun as a prop; she kept her finger on the trigger, had it pointed at the audience, and the safety appeared to be off. Despite being uninformed on firearm safety, the gun control advocate allegedly owns a conceal carry permit.

Sylvester Stallone, who capitalizes on violent movies, and Stephen King whose novel Rage glamorized school shooters and has been found in several criminals’ libraries, are also fervent advocates for gun control.

Such hypocrisy and refusal to understand gun owner culture and safety is astounding.

I have also been saddened by the repulsive mocking of former military sniper Chris Kyles’ murder as some radicals say he deserved to be shot for supporting the right to bear arms; this is no longer about protecting our kids, but rather a political agenda that has lost all respect in my eyes.

Guns and their owners have been demonized to the extent that the public is now taught to fear them and forget their ability to save lives. Did you hear about the Price Middle School shooting in Atlanta? How about the Pearl High School shooting in Mississippi? What about The Hobbit midnight premier shooting in Texas? Of course not—all were averted through the efforts of armed guards and civilians, and the media is unwilling to cover these stories in order to continue the agenda of demonization.

I am pro-gun because I understand the necessity of having well trained armed civillians and security in public places. I also hold officials to their standards for us—if they are unwilling to live by their own ideals then why should we?

Perhaps most importantly, I believe in the Second Amendment. If we pick and choose which rights are applicable then there is no telling when the foundation on which this country was built will unravel completely.

Piers Morgan, an ardent gun control advocate, says the entire constitution is flawed; how long before we decide freedom of speech is too dangerous to be left in the hands of mere citizens? The day the constitution becomes void is the day America is no more.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story