Pitchforks, pistols and “going postal”

Pitchfork: n. a long-handled fork that has two or three long somewhat curved prongs and is used especially in tossing (pitching) hay

Pistol: n. a handgun whose chamber is integral with the barrel

“Going postal”: v. To become extremely angry or deranged, especially in an outburst of violence. The term derives from a series of incidents from 1983 onward in which United States Postal Service  workers shot and killed managers, fellow workers, and members of the police or general public. Between 1986 and 1997, more than 40 people were killed in at least 20 incidents of workplace rage.

Used to be when the rabble got roused, they’d go after the bad guy with their pitchforks pointed at his butt, thus running him out of town.

No more. We’ve got guns, and we’re gonna use ’em.

Pistol, by Christoph Niemann

Pistol, by Christoph Niemann

How many mass murders are we going to allow before we stand up to the gun lobby???  47 just in the past month!

An article by AP writer Ted Anthony asks, “What is happening in the American psyche that prevents people from defusing their own anguish and rage before they end the lives of others? Why are we killing each other?”

I can answer that:   Because.We.Have.Guns.   Without guns we’d have to resort to fisticuffs, maybe a knife, maybe lots of screaming and yelling.

The other issue, raised by Charles Blow in the NY Times: Are certain susceptible people taking as gospel the call of right-wing crazies like Glenn Beck, Chuck Norris, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh to be red-blooded patriots and take up arms if necessary to prevent SOCIALISTS and ATHIESTS and LIBERALS from taking over the country?

What are we becoming?

Advertisements

2 responses to “Pitchforks, pistols and “going postal”

  1. But of course the NRA answer to this is that the real problem isn’t too many guns, it’s not enough people having guns. They continue to contend that everyone should be armed, and only then will the ‘bad’ people be stopped (dead in their tracks, as it were, by an armed and dangerous general populace). Somehow that thought just doesn’t reassure me.

  2. It’s true that, obviously, if nobody had guns people would not die by them. However, outlawing guns is not a logical step to take to prevent crime. People who follow the law are not the dangerous ones. People who ignore the law and have no concern for the safety of others or reguard for law are the ones that cause problems. Making guns illegal would mean that people who follow the law will abide by it and get rid of their guns while the people who don’t care and cause most the problems to begin with will continue to ignore the law and keep theirs, therefore leaving the dangerous people armed and the law abiding citizens defenseless. Just throwing that out there as something to ponder.