A Million Armed Dads
By Michael Quinn Sullivan
CNS Commentary
13 June, 2000
A gun? For Father's Day?, my wife's friend asked in horror, as the children played nearby. You've got to be kidding!
"I'm not," was my wife's reply. "It's what my husband wants as a gift."
While it is true I have been hinting - rather strongly - that a medium-caliber pistol would make a delightful gift for dear old dad, I've
not been holding my breath. They are a little pricey.
As my beloved related the conversation, my amusement at the young mother's horrified reaction to the use of the words "gun" and
"gift" in the same sentence, turned to bemusement at the success of the left in distorting the issue of firearm ownership.
Otherwise reasonable, clear-thinking Americans have been turned into lap dogs cowering with terror under the bed-sheets. I cannot blame them. After all, we are treated - thanks to the manipulative media - to a daily barrage of horrifying tales of children dying in the streets at a seemingly epidemic rate.
The prevailing wisdom in popular cultural - spoon-fed to us by news anchors and prime-time entertainers - holds that a gun in the house guarantees murder and mayhem.
If one is more interested in fact than babble, a report issued last year by the Centers for Disease Control entitled "Deaths: Final Data for 1997," makes for interesting reading. It demonstrates the disparity between stark reality and political hyperbole.
According to that report, 980 children under the age of 15 accidentally drown, while another 684 died in accidental fires. Meanwhile, 707 kids under 15 died of pneumonia and 2,681 died in motor vehicle accidents.
In that same year, 142 children under 15 died from accidental gunfire injuries, while another 348 died in murders involving a firearm.
An American child is five times more likely to die of pneumonia than from an accidental gunshot wound, five times more likely to be
burned to death, seven times more likely to drown, and 18 times more likely to die in a car accident. Yet what garners more attention? Will we see a "million moms" rallied to stop these tragedies?
Obviously not, for such activities are irrelevant to those seeking to empower government and disenfranchise the individual.
The real issue for ardent gun-control advocates is not the safety of children, but the dread of a very responsible use. The proponents of progressive government fear a populace that has the ability to defend, with the ultimate action, the philosophy of individual liberty.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let [the people] take arms." The architect of our Independence, Thomas Jefferson, penned these words in 1787.
From time immemorial, elitists have sought to keep people dependent upon them for protection, while unable to revolt. To that end, fear itself has become the weapon of choice; raw, mindless fear, playing to the deepest concerns of every parent, trumping rational thought and experience.
"Having guns is scary..." an otherwise reasonable friend tells me repeatedly, justifying severe restrictions on firearm ownership - he would never allow something so "scary" in his home. Yet as Mr. Jefferson suggests, the alternative is scarier.
Just ask the millions of Jews slaughtered in Nazi Germany, the blacks in South Africa, the Christians in Sudan, the anti-Communists in
Russia, the dead in Cambodia's Killing Fields, and on and on. In the name of upholding the peace, totalitarians always remove weapons from the hands of the people, before initiating reigns of brutality.
But perhaps we should not consider such remote eventualities, and worry only about the present, about our family and ourselves. I am happy to oblige.
Justice Department statistics reveal that 500,000 times each year, individuals use firearms to ward off attackers. A few more armed dads, it stands to reason, would make our homes and streets a great deal safer.
A handgun as a Father's Day present may be unconventional, but my first obligation as a father and husband is to protect my family
from the dangers of this world. No one else has that obligation; neither my father, my friend, my neighbor nor the police. It falls
squarely on my shoulders, on the man my daughter calls "daddy."
If a bear attempts to maul my precious child while we are camping, my happy thoughts about a forest ranger somewhere on patrol will
not save her. If a lunatic breaks into our home, I cannot hope that dutifully dialing "9-1-1" is enough to protect my wife. My sense of obligation is too great; my conscience will not allow it.
It bemuses and mystifies me that the conscience of other men, somehow, does. More amazing is that there are women and children in their lives who stand for it.
Michael Quinn Sullivan is the director of communications for the Conservative Communications Center, the umbrella
organization for CNSNews.com.
By Michael Quinn Sullivan
CNS Commentary
13 June, 2000
A gun? For Father's Day?, my wife's friend asked in horror, as the children played nearby. You've got to be kidding!
"I'm not," was my wife's reply. "It's what my husband wants as a gift."
While it is true I have been hinting - rather strongly - that a medium-caliber pistol would make a delightful gift for dear old dad, I've
not been holding my breath. They are a little pricey.
As my beloved related the conversation, my amusement at the young mother's horrified reaction to the use of the words "gun" and
"gift" in the same sentence, turned to bemusement at the success of the left in distorting the issue of firearm ownership.
Otherwise reasonable, clear-thinking Americans have been turned into lap dogs cowering with terror under the bed-sheets. I cannot blame them. After all, we are treated - thanks to the manipulative media - to a daily barrage of horrifying tales of children dying in the streets at a seemingly epidemic rate.
The prevailing wisdom in popular cultural - spoon-fed to us by news anchors and prime-time entertainers - holds that a gun in the house guarantees murder and mayhem.
If one is more interested in fact than babble, a report issued last year by the Centers for Disease Control entitled "Deaths: Final Data for 1997," makes for interesting reading. It demonstrates the disparity between stark reality and political hyperbole.
According to that report, 980 children under the age of 15 accidentally drown, while another 684 died in accidental fires. Meanwhile, 707 kids under 15 died of pneumonia and 2,681 died in motor vehicle accidents.
In that same year, 142 children under 15 died from accidental gunfire injuries, while another 348 died in murders involving a firearm.
An American child is five times more likely to die of pneumonia than from an accidental gunshot wound, five times more likely to be
burned to death, seven times more likely to drown, and 18 times more likely to die in a car accident. Yet what garners more attention? Will we see a "million moms" rallied to stop these tragedies?
Obviously not, for such activities are irrelevant to those seeking to empower government and disenfranchise the individual.
The real issue for ardent gun-control advocates is not the safety of children, but the dread of a very responsible use. The proponents of progressive government fear a populace that has the ability to defend, with the ultimate action, the philosophy of individual liberty.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let [the people] take arms." The architect of our Independence, Thomas Jefferson, penned these words in 1787.
From time immemorial, elitists have sought to keep people dependent upon them for protection, while unable to revolt. To that end, fear itself has become the weapon of choice; raw, mindless fear, playing to the deepest concerns of every parent, trumping rational thought and experience.
"Having guns is scary..." an otherwise reasonable friend tells me repeatedly, justifying severe restrictions on firearm ownership - he would never allow something so "scary" in his home. Yet as Mr. Jefferson suggests, the alternative is scarier.
Just ask the millions of Jews slaughtered in Nazi Germany, the blacks in South Africa, the Christians in Sudan, the anti-Communists in
Russia, the dead in Cambodia's Killing Fields, and on and on. In the name of upholding the peace, totalitarians always remove weapons from the hands of the people, before initiating reigns of brutality.
But perhaps we should not consider such remote eventualities, and worry only about the present, about our family and ourselves. I am happy to oblige.
Justice Department statistics reveal that 500,000 times each year, individuals use firearms to ward off attackers. A few more armed dads, it stands to reason, would make our homes and streets a great deal safer.
A handgun as a Father's Day present may be unconventional, but my first obligation as a father and husband is to protect my family
from the dangers of this world. No one else has that obligation; neither my father, my friend, my neighbor nor the police. It falls
squarely on my shoulders, on the man my daughter calls "daddy."
If a bear attempts to maul my precious child while we are camping, my happy thoughts about a forest ranger somewhere on patrol will
not save her. If a lunatic breaks into our home, I cannot hope that dutifully dialing "9-1-1" is enough to protect my wife. My sense of obligation is too great; my conscience will not allow it.
It bemuses and mystifies me that the conscience of other men, somehow, does. More amazing is that there are women and children in their lives who stand for it.
Michael Quinn Sullivan is the director of communications for the Conservative Communications Center, the umbrella
organization for CNSNews.com.
