A few days ago a neighbor new to our block (we’ll call him
Joe) threatened to shoot my other neighbor (we’ll call him Sam) because Sam's
dog pooped in the parking strip - the part owned by the city between the
sidewalk and curb. What's darkly ironic, considering the recent events in Newtown, Connecticut, Sam is an elementary school teacher.
As dog owners Sam, his wife, my wife and myself regularly pick up the dog poop left in our neighborhood by other dogs, but Joe doesn't know this because he's new. Sam and I have lived on this block for over 2 years and are friends with all the other neighbors. Joe doesn't know this either because he's new.
As dog owners Sam, his wife, my wife and myself regularly pick up the dog poop left in our neighborhood by other dogs, but Joe doesn't know this because he's new. Sam and I have lived on this block for over 2 years and are friends with all the other neighbors. Joe doesn't know this either because he's new.
Joe is bigger than Sam and makes five times the
money. I am not sure what's so intimidating about a schoolteacher that Joe
needs to bring guns into the conversation.
I grew up hunting and my father in-law took me to the gun
range the day before I got married. I have no problem with gun ownership (as I
stated in an earlier post, I own two). My problem is when guns are used to
bully and intimidate innocent people through the threat of violence and death. Guns
are created for killing. It seems that some gun owners do not respect this absolute
power - the power to take life.
A schoolteacher, or any law-abiding citizen, is quite a bit
different from a burglar, rapist, or despotic regime trying to enslave a
population. It’s disturbing that these renegade gun owners feel the need to threaten
passive, liberal-minded American citizens who are only dangerous to the chicken
they dice up for Thursday night stir-fry.
In a Slate interview, Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, said that, "the president of one of the largest handgun manufacturers in the country once told me, face to face, how much money he had committed to an intimidation effort and advised me to keep my life insurance paid up. There was a time when federal law enforcement agents recommended that I wear a ballistic vest.” (The bold is my edit.)
In a Slate interview, Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, said that, "the president of one of the largest handgun manufacturers in the country once told me, face to face, how much money he had committed to an intimidation effort and advised me to keep my life insurance paid up. There was a time when federal law enforcement agents recommended that I wear a ballistic vest.” (The bold is my edit.)
Intimidation effort? Against preventing deaths by studying the causes and effects
of gun deaths in this country? Federal law
enforcement agents knew about this? Really? This is mind blowing. Somehow the passive, peace lovers of
this country, the ones who only want to make the world a better, safer place,
have been lumped into the same group as the dangerous criminals - a threat to be countered by violence. This
makes me question who American citizens really need to be protected against.
In an Washington Post op-ed, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) said, "one of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” sent a chilling message.
Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries."
In an Washington Post op-ed, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) said, "one of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” sent a chilling message.
Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries."
What’s sad is when I posted the origin of this essay on Facebook one
of my friends told me to “be safe” in the comments. Fear of Joe’s threatened
violence has rippled beyond our little neighborhood and into my broader
community of friends. Threatening violence towards someone is intimidation
and bullying, and this is the reason stricter regulation of guns is finally gaining
steam in America. Of course, these irresponsible gun owners will be unable to take responsibility for their action and will instead continue to blame the hippies and liberals for the erosion of their second amendment rights.
Never forget - guns are created for killing. Unless someone (including the CEO’s of gun manufacturing companies and the NRA) fully respects this fact, they don't deserve to own a gun, even for recreational purposes.
Never forget - guns are created for killing. Unless someone (including the CEO’s of gun manufacturing companies and the NRA) fully respects this fact, they don't deserve to own a gun, even for recreational purposes.
Violence is a valid response when someone is trying to kill
you. Violence, or even threatening violence, is not appropriate when you are
having a dispute about dog poop.