I didn’t kill anyone.
I didn’t suggest that someone else kill someone.
Yes, the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin was a tragedy. But it was no less a tragedy than the recent mass stabbing in China (which, you will notice, was more deadly: 8 killed and 5 wounded in China, as opposed to 6 killed and 4 wounded in Wisconsin).
President Obama said that we must “do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence.”
I will commend him for not actually saying “gun violence;”* being shot kills you just as dead as being stabbed, bludgeoned, or poisoned. However, I can’t actually reduce violence myself; I’m not violent.
“But,” you say, “don’t you carry a weapon?”
Yes, but I don’t carry it to be violent.
I carry to prevent violence.
The police aren’t there to protect me. They’re not there to protect you.
The police are there to clean up after the fact, investigate, and deter criminal behavior.
Since I can’t afford bodyguards (like Michael Bloomberg or Richard Daley), I choose to take responsibility for my own safety.
*Unlike the nanny of the decade, Michael Bloomberg. Given his track record with other amendments, it’s not surprising he still hates the second. DC v. Heller is still good law; handguns and semi-auto weapons are protected because they’re in common use.**
**This standard seems to be begging the question. Automatic weapons aren’t in common use because they’ve been heavily regulated since the 1934 NFA, and de facto banned since 1986***. According to the court’s logic in Heller, this ban is fine because automatic weapons aren’t in common use, but they’re not in common use because they’re banned.
***They’re not actually banned de jure; if you pay for the tax stamp, you can buy a machine gun that was manufactured before 1986; however, they’re not making any more of them, so qualifying automatic weapons can cost upwards of $10,000.