I know it’s been really slow around here of late. I would promise to do better with the coming year, but regular readers could probably guess how that would turn out.
Still, I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas, and a wonderful New Year.
It’s amusing to me that the Charleston Gazette’s headline for their editorial, “Insanity” identifies the real source of the problem behind the murders they highight, while the piece itself proves that the Gazette’s editorial staff just doesn’t get it.
Among his other well-written posts, Kevin Baker often highlights stories of murders and other violent crimes in England, where guns are banned. He highlights the fact that it is the criminals and their insanity[a], not the weapons that they use.
It’s also amusing to me that the Gazette, in their editorial genius, use the case of Matthew Murray, whose rampage was stopped by… a gun. The Gazette mentions this story, and Jeanne Assam’s heroism, and completely glosses over the fact that this case is proof not of the evil inherent in guns, but that guns are merely a tool that can be used for good or evil (or neutral — see: target shooting).
Finally, the Gazette mentions these stories in an attempt to give its take on the upcoming DC vs. Heller case:
Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court is to rule on whether cities can ban pistol ownership. Since the high court is dominated by conservatives appointed by Republican presidents — and the GOP is in league with the gun lobby — it’s doubtful that cities will be allowed to protect people in this manner.
I would’ve worded that last paragraph a little differently:
Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court is to rule on whether cities can ban pistol ownership. Since the high court is no longer dominated by liberals who care more about what they think should be in the Constitution rather than judging based on what’s actually there, it is hopeful that cities will no longer be allowed to prevent people from protecting themselves and others in this manner.
Unfortunately, though, the Gazette just doesn’t get it.
According to his dad, WVU kicker Pat McAfee has been receiving death threats as a result of two missed field goals in the December 1st game against the Pitt Panthers. Apparently, some “fans” have chosen to single out Pat for Saturday’s loss, and they feel that, for the crime of causing that loss, he should be terrorized.
Yes, Saturday’s loss was a huge disappointment. Yes, one could say, “if only Pat McAfee hadn’t missed those field goals, we could have won.” That might even be true[a]. One could also say, “if only Jarrett Brown hadn’t fumbled that ball,” “if only Pat White hadn’t been injured,” “if only Steve Slaton had been given the ball more often,” “if only Owen Schmitt had been given the ball more often,” “if only Reynaud had caught that pass,” “if only the offensive line had been stronger,” or a thousand other “if onlies” that every WVU fan has had playing through his or her head since the end of that game. While saying that, though, one might also say, “if only pigs had wings and I’d won the lottery last night,” because it would be just as effective.
So the Mountaineers are only going to the Fiesta Bowl, not the national championship game. While disappointing, that’s definitely not something that someone deserves to die (or to be threatened with death) over, especially not a young man who has played very well all season (not to mention previous seasons) and just happened to have a poor performance on Saturday. Keep in mind that McAfee’s missed field goals were far from the only things going wrong on a Saturday in which the Mountaineers lost a game that we were favored to win by 28 points.
If your biggest problem in your life today is that your favorite football team has lost a game[b], then you can count yourself extremely lucky. Get a little perspective and grow up, people.