A friend of mine sent me this cartoon earlier, and I find it perfect considering the media’s anti-gun standpoint in the wake of the mass shooting last week.

[ Copyright © Leo Garza / San Antonio Express-News ]

     Having been around guns since I was … well, born, actually … I learned to have a healthy respect for them.  As a child, I never touched them unless they were handed to me.  I didn’t tell my friends about them.  I didn’t ever show them to my friends.  I didn’t carry them around with me.  I certainly never took one to show-and-tell.

Why?

Because I listened to what my father told me.

Flash forward a lot of years, and any time a child doesn’t listen to their parents and does any of those things with a gun, the media goes insane about it.
The problem isn’t guns — it’s in raising a child who has no idea about cause-and-effect relationships, no responsibility or consequences for their own actions.

Guns should be kept away from children.  I agree with that.  Some people should not own guns.  I agree with that.  But making widespread sweeping changes and Federal bans on guns?
Congress doesn’t know enough about firearms to make any such distinctions.  There are any number of stumbling blocks here.  You can’t go out today and come home with a handgun.  You can’t go out today and purchase a fully automatic, military-style weapon — nor can you in two weeks.  Or a month.  Or six.

We have enjoyed gun ownership since this country was founded.  There are plenty of them around.  Employing strict gun control laws only affects guns that the Government knows about, viz. AR-15 rifles. Since we’ve been signing up for them, with background checks, for nearly thirty years, then what are we supposed to do?
In essence, the Government would be saying, “Oh, by the way, that gun you signed for twenty years ago?  Give it here.  No, you haven’t done anything wrong.  But … Give it!  No, I don’t care how much you paid for it, and I don’t care what it’s worth.  I’ll give you to the count of three, or I’ll have to shoot you… 1 … 2 … I thought so.”

“But you don’t need a Glock 17 that can hold 19 rounds!” some scream.
I would argue that they don’t need an SUV with a 24-gallon gas tank that has to be refilled every 200 miles.
Sure, my gun might, one day, give one person a really bad day if they come into my home with the intent of causing me harm.  But their SUV is nothing more than a carbon monoxide factory that is destroying the ozone layer and screwing it up for all of us.

Which one’s really more important?

On 19-Apr-2007, vehement gun control activists, The Brady Campaign, released a press statement, titled, “Cho Seung-Hui Was A Prohibited Purchaser Under Existing Federal Law.”

Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke issued the following statement:

“We believe that based on existing Federal law, Cho Seung-Hui should not have passed his Brady background checks and should not have been allowed to purchase firearms.”

So, basically, they’re saying that even though there were laws in place to prevent Cho from ever owning a gun, he got them anyway, because someone broke the law.  Was it Cho?  The seller?  Those responsible for the background check?
Whatever the answer, it doesn’t change the fact that no amount of legislation would have kept it from happening.

Heed My Words: Gun control isn’t going to affect the massive number of illegal, untraceable guns that are out there, and it will leave a populace completely undefended against those who possess them.

Yes it was a tragedy, yes it was traumatic for those involved, and yes it was horribly unfair. But honestly, get over it already.

Why are we as a nation so infatuated with the death of 33 people whom most of us would never have met? Is this event any different than the thousands of other events that resulted in 1200 deaths across the nation in that same period of time? Is it suddenly news worthy when 33 people die in a single event vs hundreds or thousands dying in similar yet unrelated events?

In the United States of America, how many people drank themselves to death that day? How many innocent people were killed because someone was driving while drinking themselves to death? How many toddlers were raped by a family member. How many children were beaten, bruised, maimed, or killed by their parents that day? How many children slit their wrists or hung themselves because of depression? How many people starved to death? With the exception of starvation (just eight) each of those numbers is greater than 33, most are over 100.

There are many atrocities closer to home that we should be worried about. Yet as a people the US appears intent on ignoring the “routine deaths” in favor of the sensational. Why can’t we realize that CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and all these other so called news channels are FOR PROFIT? They don’t give one bit of shit about reporting the truth. They only care about ratings.

The news is supported by the advertisers. Ratings go up when more people watch. Advertisers pay more for shows with higher ratings. It stands to reason that a for-profit company would do everything they can to get more viewers. I see it on the national news channels, local news, and even PBS and NPR. They all constantly promise one more tidbit of information to string you along and keep you from changing channels.

Ironically, I don’t blame the news agencies. I blame you! You watch the news, you agonize over the tragedy and you buy it, hook line and sinker. Truth, lies, slanted left, slanted right, you consume it all. Your eyeballs glued to the freaking CNN or Fox News are to blame. If you wouldn’t watch the shit, they wouldn’t produce it.

So as you’re walking around tomorrow and see people wearing orange and maroon, commemorating the shooting at VT, thank them from the bottom of your heart for perpetuating a nation of lies, half truths, and sensational tragedy.