I almost never write a social commentary - either here, nor on a popular social networking site. But if I have to listen to one more idiot talking about the second amendment, I think I'm going to scream. There's a quote circulating lately about how one guy puts a bomb in his shoe and everyone is taking their shoes off at the airport now - yet 30 mass shootings since Columbine, and nothing has changed. Take it from another angle - losers buy up lots of Sudafed for meth labs and that's hard to get, but you can buy ammo freely.
Yes, I get the fact that the guns used in any of these mass shootings are just tools. Agreed. Sudafed is a decongestant. But in the wrong hands...
In the wrong hands, guns are the tools used in horrible tragedies, and if these kinds of tragedies are going to increase dramatically - and mind you, they are increasing, then we would do well to look into the ways we could minimize these kinds of events, and gun control laws being revised is one way of doing that. It's not the only way. Personally, I don't like guns - but that doesn't mean that I think anyone who does like guns is an idiot. I don't think that. But I do think something needs to be done to help prevent guns from being easily accessed by people who might use them in irresponsible ways, ways that innocent people will have their lives affected and ended by.
This, the tools falling into the wrong hands and being used in horribly inappropriate ways, is what those of us who want to see improvements in gun control laws, addressed. For the love of God, it's a privilege to have a driver's license - not a constitutional right. Why? Because one has to prove that they are responsible enough and able to operate a motor vehicle on our roadways - for their own safety and the safety of others. The laws in effect to help ensure this safety aren't infallible - there are still boneheads out there who drive like assholes, drive drunk and drive without insurance. Things still fall through the cracks, they always will. Always.
The laws regulating driving a motor vehicle or buying Sudafed are there to try to minimize either of these things falling into the wrong hands. I don't use Sudafed these days, but there was a time when I did. Do I really need the long arm of the law looking over my shoulder when I want relief from my allergies or a cold and I need something to lessen the symptoms of either of those things so that I can go to work or about my day? I don't, but the government wants to make sure I'm not buying up boxes of Sudafed and making meth to sell like some cretin. Yet I can walk into a store and buy boxes of bullets and the government doesn't give a damn, nor will they, until something illegal is done with said bullets.
Even then, their stance is that it's my right to buy bullets, so bullets aren't the problem.
Why does the law want to know how much Sudafed I might buy? What if that's the only thing that helps relieve my symptoms during allergy season? I can't take advantage of a sale and stock up, because there's a high probability that I don't suffer from allergies at all, but instead, I want to cook up a bunch of meth to sell because that's easier than working for the man. Really?
The best gun control laws, improved upon and enforced in the best ways possible, are not going to eliminate mass shootings - some lunatic will find a way, somehow, to slip through the cracks of the system and innocent people will pay the price. But the very thought that we, as a society, might well see less of these kinds of tragedies is not a bad idea in my opinion. We could do with less things like this people.
3 comments:
I agree with you., Chris. Jon Stewart had a great commentary about it (I think it was Tuesday night). The misuse of the Second Amendment really makes my ass tired.
I saw a post that said something to the effect that the two most important words in the Second Amendment are "well regulated". I think that regulation should come in the form of excruciatingly thorough testing and registration. Hell, if you pass periodic tests for visual acuity, reaction time and psychological evaluation, and have the appropriate licenses and permits, I don't have a problem with you owning guns. Of course, the sale of bullets and gunpowder would be equally regulated.
Because what are we talking about here? A power substitute. Something that makes you stronger than the total of your muscles. And you use it to subdue something that you couldn't subdue with just your muscles. In sports, we call that "cheating".
But here's the thing: in the gun world, there are instances where the use of a firearm is "an appropriate response". I just think that, until you can prove that you've been trained to use this power substitute in a, shall we say, well regulated fashion, there should be regulations in place forbidding you to own such a thing.
How about:
• Significant fees/fines for each bullet fired outside of registered shooting ranges and registered hunting areas. (This is not a perfect analogy, but the cost of speeding tickets is a large part of what prevents speeding, and the associated highway fatalities.) A homeowner can stand his ground/protect his castle/insert cliche here, but maybe they'd think for an extra 20 msec. before they shot an intruder, or more significantly, Uncle Don who got up to use the bathroom, or the spouse who just WON'T LEAVE IT ALONE!
• In those aforementioned shooting ranges and hunting grounds, you can't own more than two cartridges' worth of bullets per gun at any one time. If you've had the training, passed the tests, and can't take down a deer with twelve shots - well, maybe hunting's not in your wheelhouse. And if you're at a shooting range, when you run out, you walk 8 feet to the counter and buy more bullets.
Anybody who complains that these inconveniences would interfere with the enjoyment of the sport hasn't taken a family of four to a major-league football game. Shooting a gun is (obviously) not a god-given right; it is, and should be, a human activity that, done correctly, requires some talent. I wasn't born with the ability to play the piano - it involved practice and repetition. To think that an activity that has the ancillary ability to kill those around you should be freely available to anyone, without training, is ludicrous. I'll stop now.
All good points - you're required to be responsible in the operation of a car, I think the same should be required in both owning and using a gun. We, as a society, have proved time and again, that there is a need to crack down on things such as drunk driving, mandating automobile insurance - why? To cut down/minimize the things that happen to innocent people - it's absurd to think that the increase in mass shootings has nothing to do with how easy it is to acquire guns.
Post a Comment