No doubt you are aware of the three students murdered in Chapel Hill, NC over a parking space dispute. Yesterday the News & Observer decided to publish an editorial by Ned Barrnett entitled The Hard Toll Of Easy Guns in which Ned spells out his thoughts and his ignorance at the same time. As always the rhetoric appears to be benign and to have the sheep shaking their head yes, but when you look at the facts the argument just doesn’t hold water. Ned first speaks of a hate crime and hatred of Muslims by the murderer and in reality this guy hated anyone who parked in his parking space. The paper just did a long write-up about it, you would think Ned would read and comprehend his own paper. I’m not saying it wasn’t hatred, he killed three people after all, I am saying it wasn’t the normal definition associated with a hate crime. Anyway, the full story should come out in full at the trial if the prosecutor and defense attorney take the time to investigate the crime properly. It won’t bring back those three young people and won’t change the fact the murderer deserves the death penalty for his actions.
Ned continues his editorial speaking about hate crimes and then tries to connect this incident to Newtown, CT through one of the firearms found in the apartment of the murderer. He then tries to persuade you it might have been used in the murders and to murder others. Ned just doesn’t have any facts to support any of that supposition. Finally he gets to his point, but it really isn’t what he wants. You see Ned wants no one but the government to have guns. Ned is afraid of guns and he believes they are evil, but he doesn’t have the balls to come out and say it. however, I do have the balls to call him out on it. Ned calls for sane gun laws and says, “People should be allowed to have guns only when they can establish a need for them – hunting or protection – not just a desire for them.” So Ned would restrict your right to pick out whatever firearm you wanted. You would only be allowed to own a firearm for hunting or for personal protection, and only if you demonstrate a need. I wonder if Nate feels everything in life should be regulated. One pair of shoes unless you can demonstrate a need. Only one car unless you can demonstrate a need. I don’t see how limiting choice would have stopped this crime. I actually don’t know what type of firearm was used in killing the students in Chapel Hill, but I assume from what I have read it was a handgun. What Ned fails to take into account is a hunting rifle would have still been available for this murderer and he could have always obtained firearms through illegal means if restrictions were in place.
So thanks Ned for letting us know where you stand and what to expect from the editorial page of the N&O, even if I did have to read between the lines to see what you really want is restriction and confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens. Perhaps your masthead on the editorial page should state your true philosophy, The masses must always suffer due to the actions of a few.