A recent newspaper article written by Darlene Superville of the Associated Press titled, “Obama backs police officers,” left me a bit confused. In it, she quotes the president as saying, “Fewer gun safety laws don’t mean more freedom, they mean more danger, certainly, more danger to the police, more fallen officers.”
This, and any statement of this type, is patently absurd and untrue. Criminals, by definition, don’t follow laws. You want consensus, unity, harmony, America as one again? Then we must be able to agree on that. Criminals are criminals, precisely- and only- because they don’t abide by laws. America is less safe- not more- when the good people (non-criminals) are disarmed and the criminals can rape, pillage, murder and plunder unburdened by the thought that they might be held to account by courageous citizens with firearms.
Is it easier to buy a gun in Illinois or Wyoming? Which has the lower violent crime rate?
The article also stated, and this just can’t be correct (and it wasn’t in quotation marks), that Obama said that while he ‘has no sympathy for violent offenders, the United States wastes billions of dollars that could be better spent to keep nonviolent offenders behind bars.’
Yes, that would seem the right path to take…let the violent criminals go free, but, at all costs, permanently incarcerate the jaywalkers, tax evaders, Bible-thumping Christians and climate-change Deniers!
Truly wish for you and yours to be safer? If so, we need fewer “gun-free zones” and more “dumb-free zones.”