Father Of Christina Green Says More Restriction On Freedom Isn’t The Answer

This interview with the father of 9 year-old Christina Green is remarkable both for the emotion itself and for his statement that he didn’t think that the death of his daughter should be the occasion for greater restrictions of American’s freedom, and it’s worthy of consideration by all of us:

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Roger Zimmerman says:

    Very remarkable indeed. To hold your head together and exercise perspective and rationality at such a horrible time is the mark of a heroic individual. The most profound thing he said is “there will always be random acts …”. The implication that every day of life is precious and that should guide our behavior was left as a “lesson for the listener”.

    I am inspired.

  2. Ronin says:

    He has my deepest sympathies.

    But he’s no more of an expert on this than anyone else.

    He’s not an expert at all.

    That he was even asked about this is just shameful media sensationalization of the little girl’s death.

    It carries no weight and should be ignored.

    A public safety or law enforcement or security or constitutional expert’s opinion would be infinitely more relevant.

  3. Andy says:

    He’s much more insightful than somebody like Rep. Carolyn McCarthy or Collin Goddard, who have exploited their tragedies to limit the freedoms of others. Neither one of those two can actually articulate how their gun control laws will help stem violence. This guy has it amazingly together so close after the death of his daughter.

    He has my deepest sympathies. That interview nearly brought me to tears.

  4. tps says:

    Ronin: Like Cindy Sheehan was no expert and should have been ignored too?

  5. Joan says:

    I have agree with Ronin. Having said that, I think it’s still important for us to feel we can express an opinion.

    He is very traumatized and rightfully so. He on the one hand criticizes people for making it political then expresses his political view which is very much a scary point of view for some people who would rather see things going another way in regards to dangerous people out on the streets and gun control. I am very very sad for him and the family. But the sentiment expressed is so frightening. To lose a child and then say we need less control. Just so scary. I can’t honestly put myself in his shoes at all on this belief. It’s beyond comprehension, and makes feel like something is lost. When will people realize these acts are becoming less and less “random”? I could be totally wrong, but who is really to judge. I don’t see the actions that could have prevented this as such a great loss of my own personal freedom. So sorry for this tragic loss of human life, which I hope does not become less and less valued.

  6. Andy says:

    “When will people realize these acts are becoming less and less “random”?” And your basis for that statement is what?

    “I don’t see the actions that could have prevented this as such a great loss of my own personal freedom.” Do we each get a turn limiting the civil liberties of everybody in this nation based on our own personal indifferences to freedom?

  7. Joan says:

    My basis is the many shootings that have taken place just this year alone. One that stands out is the killing of the police officers in Tacoma that took place this past year. That was traumatizing to many.

    “Do we each get a turn limiting the civil liberties of everybody in this nation based on our own personal indifferences to freedom?” Actually if these actions could save lives, isn’t it worth sitting down and having a discussion about what those might specifically be before completely negating any actions at all? There are many possibilities.

  8. Andy says:

    “My basis is the many shootings that have taken place just this year alone. One that stands out is the killing of the police officers in Tacoma that took place this past year. That was traumatizing to many.” In other words, your are willing to enact laws to curtail the rights of others based purely on sensationalized stories, not on statistics or other concepts.

    “Actually if these actions could save lives, isn’t it worth sitting down and having a discussion about what those might specifically be before completely negating any actions at all? There are many possibilities.” Certainly, as long as you are willing to entertain all such actions and not just the ones you feel don’t interfere with only your freedoms. After all, just because these actions don’t interfere with your freedoms doesn’t mean they won’t interfere with the freedoms of other people.

  9. Gerry W. says:

    Okay, call me naive. From the right we hear about freedom. So, I can express my freedom to go out and get a gun. And I have to fear the rest of my life of someone shooting me or others. Sorry, I don’t get it. I’ve been to over 20 countries and I never felt less freedom by the people in those countries. Really amazing how the right will live and die with their ideologies which fail all the time. That is not to say the left is innocent, however, the right speaks about freedom, religion, and God and country-and they have no answers. They are also under the power of the NRA. I have no problem with hunting rifles, but the proliferation of handguns and then laws in three states that say guns can be concealed is just asking for it. Too bad we have to live in fear in this country. But hey, we got “freedom.” And the same with tax cuts. We got the tax cuts for 10 years, but we lost the jobs anyway. As I have said before, democrats are dumb, but republicans are a bunch of nuts.

  10. Russell says:

    Quite the ability to sustain cognitive dissonance by those who go on about putting tragedy behind us and not limiting freedom regarding gun ownership on one hand and the need to submit to invasive searches limiting 4th amendment freedoms on the other.

  11. Andy says:

    Gerry, I don’t know why you feel less safe in the US than you do in other countries. Statistically, the US is a less violent country than most European countries. A recent poll of Londoners found that 50% of them expected to be victims of home invasion. In reality, unless you live in Chicago or one of the other urban areas of this country that curtail the natural right to self defense, you really are safer. Perhaps the reason you don’t feel as safe is due to your exposure of sensationalized events and non-exposure to the important statistics. And that may be why you want to be called naive.

    Perhaps you also want to be called naive because you feel criminals willing to rape, kill and inflict violence on innocents will, for reasons that are unexplainable, obey a law saying they can’t possess and carry a gun. Or maybe the naivety centers on your willingness to curtail the natural right of self defense in the name of gun control when there has never, ever been a gun control law that has proven to make ordinary, law abiding citizens less susceptible to crime. Or it might be that you think the ‘R’ in NRA stands for Republican when in fact the NRA endorsed 58 house Democrats this past year.

    It could be a number of things. But you are right when you say there are a bunch of nuts out there.

  12. Gerry W. says:

    Certainly a nice way of twisting things. You have proven my point.

    ***Perhaps you also want to be called naive because you feel criminals willing to rape, kill and inflict violence on innocents will, for reasons that are unexplainable, obey a law saying they can’t possess and carry a gun. Or maybe the naivety centers on your willingness to curtail the natural right of self defense in the name of gun control when there has never, ever been a gun control law that has proven to make ordinary, law abiding citizens less susceptible to crime. Or it might be that you think the ‘R’ in NRA stands for Republican when in fact the NRA endorsed 58 house Democrats this past year.***

    We have all these guns and the above happens. It also proves a point that the NRA has a stranglehold of our politicians. And it proves a point that having guns is not “freedom” but some ideological expression that has nothing to do with freedom. While, we do not know who the nuts are, there is little use for handguns. Abolishing handguns will not stop crime either, however, incidents like this would have been harder to achieve. In other words, I don’t need of having a semi to go around town do my daily activities.

  13. Davebo says:

    ” In other words, your are willing to enact laws to curtail the rights of others based purely on sensationalized stories, not on statistics or other concepts.”

    Where were all these civil libertarian republicans in October 2010?

    Just sayin….

  14. Andy says:

    Davebo: “Where were all these civil libertarian republicans in October 2010?” Or for that matter, where were they when the Patriot Act was enacted and/or reauthorized. They were sitting right next to their Democrat colleagues of the same stripe. Republicans might be politicians but not necessarily civil libertarians.

    Gerry: Logic has failed you and you have proven nothing… other than offering up more reasons for you to be called naive as you have requested. Quick question though, since you brought it up… where in the 2nd Amendment is hunting mentioned?

  15. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Maybe if that sheriff had done his job and prevented someone he had been warned about as issueing death threats to others. It is possible someone with mental problems should not have been allowed to purchase a gun. It was not as if he was not known to have issues yet no one, once again did anything and now the hand wringing and placing blame for political advantage begins. As long as the U.S. Constitution is valid and the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. You, who would take them away can go fly kites. Which laws have ever prevented crimes?