Question: when there is a horrific traffic accident, do newspapers stop running automobile ads on their pages?
Nope. They do not.
So, why then would they be expected to remove a gun ad in the wake of a mass shooting?
Yet, for whatever reason, they are. Why? Because there is a double standard.
Think about it, when drunk drivers take an innocent life while behind the wheel, the ire of the public is directed at the drunk driver. But when an alleged racist, sociopath uses a firearm to kill nine people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, the ire of the public is directed at the gun and not the gunman.
Why can the public differentiate between the inanimate object and the driver when it comes to car accidents but can’t do the same for the inanimate object and the person who pulls the trigger in shootings?
The reason? Anti-gunners have convinced many unbiased individuals that guns are evil. Consider the following tweet from Jonathan Neufeld, a philosophy professor at the College of Charleston in Charleston, S.C.
Accentuating the irrationality of the Charleston news, the paper puts an ad for a gun shop on the front page today. pic.twitter.com/GyAW4EcKF1
— Jonathan A. Neufeld (@jneuf) June 18, 2015
“Accentuating the irrationality of the Charleston news, the paper puts an ad for a gun shop on the front page today,” he notes.
But again, what’s irrational about it? I don’t think it’s irrational — or insensitive for that matter. I bet that anyone of those nine victims wish they had a gun when 21-year-old Dylann Roof began opening fire in that church. Why? Because they would have had a chance to defend themselves.
Anti-gunners will say, well, “More than wanting to have a gun, those victims would have wished that Roof hadn’t had access to one.” But that line of reasoning is naive. Laws don’t stop criminals from behaving badly or taking innocent lives. Laws work retroactively in that they give guidance as to the severity of a crime so that an appropriate punishment can be meted out after the fact.
What would have stopped Dylann Roof dead in his tracks? Two to the chest and one to the head. That’s right, a gun and a good guy that knows how to use it. In my opinion, placing a gun ad on a newspaper in the wake of a mass shooting not only reminds one that evil exists in the world, but also that if one chooses one can take action and learn how to optimally defend against it. That’s not being irrational or insensitive. That’s being honest and direct about the world we live in.
Yet, not surprisingly, Jim Romenesko, the media reporter for the Charleston Post & Courier apologized for the ad, saying, “the front-page sticky note that was attached to some home delivery newspapers on the same day as this tragedy is a deeply regrettable coincidence. We apologize to those who were offended.”
No one should be offended or ashamed of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It exists primarily so that we can defend ourselves and our country from evil — be it a tyrannical government or a crazy man with a weapon.
I get annoyed every morning when I get out of bed and turn on the T.V. and watch the morning news. There will be a story about someone dying as a result of some idiot driving drunk. Then there’s a commercial break about a Auto-dealer having a big sale and giving cars away because they’re so over-stocked! Then the next commercial is about one of the best beers ever created. Then back to the news and the deadly auto-accident caused by a drunk-driver. Then to the National News! A deadly shooting! Something must be done about firearms! I am absolutely Sick of this Bullshit! Mean old Evil Guns! They target and Shoot all by themselves! Will it ever end?
People complaining are not gun owners, therefore guns don’t matter to them. It becomes second nature to pursue gun restrictions. But they will use booze, so in a drunk driving accident it’s more difficult to use the same thought process. Basically it boils down to a hypocritical point of view. In the liberal mind, it’s the same with Cigs, & sodas. If their not into it, they want it gone. Selfish, controlling, & intolerant people. No one has to wonder why there so unhappy.
*they’re so unhappy. 🙂
Twitter is for bird brains.
“I bet that anyone of those nine victims wish they had a gun when 21-year-old Dylann Roof began opening fire in that church.”
I can guarantee you that there last toughts weren’t, “I’m glad this is a gun-free zone.”
The only way to counter a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. If someone is able to call the cops you will still die waiting for them to show up and help out.
During this same news cycle a man drove his car intentionally into a crowd in Austria with multiple fatalities and I’ve 30 injured. Yet all that blowing up HuffingGluePost and Communist News Network is more anti gun news. Why isn’t it common sense that criminals will arm themselves either with gun cars or bombs?
Narrative and ideology.
Emotions can be hard to predict, and I’m too far removed from the situation to say if I’d have considered the gun ad tacky (or at worst crass), but I’m certain it wouldn’t have spurred me to OUTRAGE. No, taking advantage of atrocities to further a standing ideology or political agenda is the only thing I’d become outraged about.
That said, I don’t agree with the “double standard” premise of this article because the analogy doesn’t hold. Fatal automobile collisions and mass shootings both involve the loss of lives, with ethically neutral machinery being the immediate cause of death. But they differ critically in two ways: machinery per capita and intent*.
First, cars are ubiquitous, and generally viewed as a necessity for modern life in cities where public transportation isn’t the standard. Cars enable most of us to get to our jobs, and ultimately to buy food and shelter. Guns, on the other hand, are more elective. Without guns, the vast majority of us could still function on the same level. Simply, a car ad is never a reaction to a tragedy; it’s a standing expectation resulting from a necessity. A gun ad is more likely opportunistic.
And second, the presence of hate or malice, the DESIRE to bring about death on the part of the person responsible, adds an additional emotional reaction to the event – one that’s potentially as intense as the grief. The more emotional we get, the less rational we become. We’re far more likely to make logical errors, such as blaming the wrong thing for our hurt, “shooting the messenger” as it were, if you’ll pardon the very poorly chosen phrase.
I love being an owner of multiple firearms. Aside from the enjoyment of target shooting, I view it as my duty as a U.S. citizen to honor the foresight of the founding fathers, and I’m not ashamed of that responsibility. All I’m saying is that if there’s anything I love as much as guns, it’s a well-crafted analogy that establishes a rock-solid argument. If your rock-solid argument begins with a flawed or dubious analogy, you give the opposite side ammo. Sorry. I’m just full of inappropriate phrasing today.
*As the article uses the term “traffic ACCIDENTS,” we will ignore the cases where a vehicle is intentionally used as a murder weapon.
Self defense is not an “Elective”.
I do agree about the car ads you point out, more likely the idea should have been on the drunk drivers which kill innocent people yet we don’t hear the Libs calling for beer, wine, liquor to be band. Remember prohibition? Didn’t work. It’s multi million dollar industry, walk in to your corner convenient store and within 5 steps there are iced down beers for sale. You have to walk clear to the back of the store to get a soda. Most people drive to these stores, yet drinking and driving is illegal. Makes sense doesn’t it. This crazy kid had time to reload 5 times. A good guy with a gun within 50 yards could have made a difference.
Prayers out to the families of the slain. I wonder if any of these family members decided to protect themselves afterwards and become pro 2nd.
Apparently it is not obvious to this “philosophy professor” that having a gun when someone is shooting at you is not a bad thing?
As usual, excellent article, presented in a logical fashion… which means any liberal won’t be able to make heads or tails of it….
A heinous mass murder. Was the location selected based on the assumption the Church was gun free as most are? This is far from the first criminal attack at a place of Worship. We also know that some Pastors are Lions protecting their Flock. Pastors have used firearms to protect themselves and their congregations. On the proactive side a Priest held firearms classes in his Church (until stopped by Superiors), another Church had firearm giveaway to entice new parishioners to attend.
We know the results of this latest attack. There is a lot of speculation on the motive and reason for that location. We do know the LE does not have a mandate or capability to protect all citizens 24/7. That puts the responsibility for protection on the shoulders of each individual. Break it down to basics: it is good vs evil. Anyone who pushes to place restrictions on lawful firearms and their usage strips the Good people the tools they need to fight the evil doers. If Cities, States or Federal Government drives to disarm you, whose side do you think they are on? Criminals by any definition do not comply with laws. They specifically know right from wrong and understand there will be appropriate penalties imposed when caught. They don’t care. There is nothing a criminal can do that is not covered by an existing Law. The Feds don’t even prosecute the majority of falsified firearms applications. There is a political push to reduce
sentencing guidelines and accelerate early release of convicted offenders. This puts more criminals on the streets. We do not need more feel good, knee jerk, sympathetic solidarity driven gun laws. WE NEED MORE LAWFULLY ARMED CITIZENS READY TO PROTECT WHAT MATTERS TO THEM.