I’ve been saying for a while that culture and entertainment have a symbiotic relationship, that they shape each other in complimentary ways, with input from other things as well. Sadly, there is no shortage of examples, the prime currently being Colorado’s theater shooting which ended the lives of twelve people. It turns out, if you teach people that all morality is relative, they might end up behaving as if that were so.

For a group intent on controlling people’s minds through hate-crime and hate-speech legislation, our friends on the left sure focus exclusively on the weapon and totally ignore the shooter, unless they feel like they can tie him to their political opponents.

Yeah… The networks jump to Tea Partiers all the time only to be found out 100% wrong in the end. Jared Loughner and MSNBC lying… Bloomberg and the radical muslim… It never ends with the dinosaur media.

This shooter happened to not be a right-winger (not being a right-winger happens to be a trend among mass murderers). He was not even a gun nut, considering that he used his government grant to buy the weapons within two months of the shooting. Sounds a lot more like a Charles Giteau-style nutjob.

No matter what the facts of the case are, those on the left seize on these sorts of shootings to declare a need for greater gun-control laws, or ammunition tracking, or a dozen other pie-in-the-sky ideas that will make lefties feel good, while providing no meaningful impediment to keep demented people from doing demented things. Here are a few good quotes; “Every time a gun is used in a mass killing, politicians want to disarm people who didn’t do it,” and “Really? Gun laws will stop people from using guns as they break the law?

Since the election of 2008, gun sales have found a very high plateau, and have spiked in the past week as a result of this shooting. The millions of gun owners and millions of guns in America are enough to wipe everyone out, if the gun owners were like this shooter in Colorado. And yet, mass killing are rare, entirely non-existent at gun shows and shooting ranges!

Actually, we gun owners don’t mind other people not owning guns, until they tell us we have to live defenseless like… them.

You see, people realize that the best way to protect themselves from crazy people and criminals is to have the most efficient tool built to do so. Simply put, if another patron in the theater had been carrying a weapon (against the policy of the theater and the law), they would have stood a better chance at stopping the killer than any foolish hope that the lunatic would have suddenly developed a conscience, mid-reloading.

This is what you are saying with the citizens-must-disarm sticker.

At one time, a good friend of mine, who happens to be pretty distant from my philosophy, told me that carrying a gun doesn’t make you safer, that it only makes you feel safer. I am a concealed carry holder, so I have carried a gun in the past and I can tell you, it does not make me feel safer at all. I felt pretty safe where I was carrying, even when I didn’t have a gun. I tend to avoid the bad areas, which helps my odds of avoiding assault.

However, were I to become a statistic despite the odds, I wouldn’t feel safer by drawing my Kimber in self-defense. I’d only have increased the odds of my survival. That’s it. That’s all. I wouldn’t feel very much in the moment, because I’d be focused on getting out of the circumstance with my life, and a gun would greatly improve my chances of fighting back against a mugger. Maybe guns make some people feel safer. But considering that most incidents involving guns are those where citizens use them in self-defense and come out on top of the equation (these happen to be the overwhelming majority of incidents involving guns), then maybe we should stop the hyperbole. This madman in Colorado would not have been prevented from say… smashing people’s skulls with a bat, if only we had enough laws to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things! By definition, a law-breaker will see no barrier in gun laws.

There’s a moral question for people here; how can we tell anyone that they cannot use a tool to protect their person and their property? If the person who is assaulting them ignores laws in the first place and has a gun, how can we say it is morally proper to tell that law-abiding citizen they can’t have equal ability to project force in their own defense?

Businesses (having every right to do so) put these No Weapons Allowed stickers on their doors, but what the stickers actually say is different than that. Instead of creating a crime-free zone, they create a crime-choice zone by eliminating all chances of citizens fighting back. Instead of providing a place of safety for people, they provide a place of easy-picking for predators. Gun-free zones are victim-pools for anyone who shirks the law, both in assaulting people and in the items they use to accomplish the offense.

Our prayers go out to those who were wounded and to the families of those who were killed, especially the three men who died protecting the girls they were with. Let us take note of these events and evaluate our philosophies as individuals, so that we can know there really are right and wrong behaviors and that we know the One who is the measure of morality.