Guns and their use is on the minds of just about every American today, as it has been after each of the mass shootings that have assaulted our media airwaves throughout recent years. And like every American, I have my own opinions on the subject and have rules in my household that align with my opinions. But unlike some, I don't believe that everyone should agree with my opinions or live by the rules that I impose upon my own household.
Personally, I'm anti-gun. I don't like them, there's no place for them in my life, and I do not want gun ownership to be normalized in the eyes of my children. As they grow up, I will not knowingly allow my children inside of a household that contains a deadly firearm. Even the most responsible and safety conscious person has a day where they forget to lock their doors, or other accidental mishaps that can endanger my children if there's such an accident regarding gun safety. I also feel that in order to keep a gun safely locked away from accidental usage kind of defeats the purpose of owning a firearm because it's difficult to get to and use in the type of emergency that the gun is there to protect the owner from in the first place.
However, I do think that hunting is a valid use of a firearm and those who choose to engage in that sport (again, not me) should have the right to do so. I also believe in the original intentions of the second amendment being to allow the general populace to protect themselves from a corrupt government or from corrupt representatives of authority such as police officers. The knowledge that the population is capable of rising up and protecting themselves from a corrupt abuse of power is in part what helps keep the powerful from mass destruction. Ok, so they are still capable of mass destruction, but at least they have to be creative and work hard for it in back room dealings and destroying things financially as opposed to sending in armies to use deadly force to oppress the masses.
But there has to be some means of controlling the amount of destruction that the bad guys are capable of inflicting upon innocent victims. This is not a subject I'm particularly educated on so I'm really asking questions here.
Aren't there now technologies that will allow people to protect themselves without killing? I'm thinking along the lines of rubber bullets. The ability to incapacitate an assailant, perhaps even maim, but without the easy capacity to kill that a standard bullet allows? Doesn't a rubber bullet do basically the same thing in an altercation that a regular bullet does, but allows someone who is shot to receive medical treatment and eventually walk away?
In terms of hunting, if an animal is shot with a rubber bullet or tased into submission, a hunter might have a license and have gone through a big hullabaloo to obtain a firearm that only allows for 2 deadly bullets so they can approach the subdued and deliver the kill shot. Bullets would have to be licensed and accounted for, and a hunter could only own a limited number at any given time.
Would bad guys still be able to get their hands on deadly weapons? Yes, of course. But the fewer that are circulating among the general populace means the more difficulty in obtaining them. The guy who steals someones guns and ammunition would get their hands on maiming weapons and have the ability to incapacitate on a massive level, perhaps some would victims would die, but certainly the amount of death would be scaled back.
I don't propose that the problem of weapons being available to bad guys so that the good guys can also have access has a perfect solution. I don't think we can wipe out the ability for bastards to harm other people. But is there something that can be done to at least make it harder? Lessen the destruction? Since perfect isn't available, I guess I'm just hoping for better. Maybe some regulations can be put in place to make deadly bullets harder to come by, incapacitating bullets the norm, and the death tolls from these horrible attacks might remain among the single digits instead of the double digits that have become so common.
I totally agree with you. There is a reason why our founding fathers believed the public should be able to bear arms. BUT all of our rights are balanced with the safety of the public. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater, or spread kiddy porn on the internet. We have freedom of the press, but we can't print libelous comments without paying the price. We have freedom of religion, but parents aren't allowed to deny their kids medical treatment, nor can we sacrifice innocent animals in religious ceremonies. There is no reason why we can't have the right to bear arms AND have restrictions that keep us safe.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a little common sense would be nice. If you, or someone you love who would have access to any firearms you own, is prone to bouts of depression or has a mental illness that may involve bouts of paranoia, you might just want to pass on owning a firearm. Just saying. My father had schizophrenia, and he wouldn't touch a gun with a ten foot pole.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/can-rubber-bullets-kill-you-110815.html
ReplyDeleteFYI, the above link is about rubber bullets.
Ya know, I really couldn't give a crap what the 'second amendment' stated over 200 years ago and all that other bullshit gun nuts love to bang on about. What place in society does an assault rifle have, or other equally powerful guns?. Apart from being able to kill lots of people very quickly. The reason men love guns is the way it makes them feel - powerful, big and strong and in control. Take that away from them and they'll only have their limp dicks to hold. But what about guns for hunting? Here's a thought: if you absolutely have to kill an animal, you know, for food, then use a bow and arrow - old school style. Where's the sport in shooting an animal with a high velocity rifle capable of firing 30 bullets in quick succession?. A blind person with one of these guns would be an awesome hunter - just point in the general direction and shoot. Police should have guns, maybe farmers, to control wildlife, AND NO-ONE ELSE.
ReplyDeleteOf course, inadequate mental health provisions also plays a part. And I don't deny that the majority of these massacres are carried out by mentally disturbed individuals. But had they not been able to access guns and ammo so easily, I doubt these incidents would be as devastating. That scrawny, ill looking boy, could not have killed so many so quickly without his moms powerful guns. The Aurora shooter was able to order thousands of rounds of ammunition over the internet. No-one bothered to check if he was of sound mind.
The other issue I have is the media. America's love of gratuitous violence knows no bounds. Show a nipple on tv and people are incensed, show someone's head being blown off - yay!. Just look how they've managed to sensationalize the recent tragedy. Interviewing parents a day after their child has just been shot to death, shoving a mic in a 3rd grade kid's face, who a few hours ago probably wondered if they'd survive. It's disgusting rubber necking.
I doubt anything meaningful will be done. The NRA are too powerful and corrupt. We'll be having this conversation again, way too soon.
S
I believe there is no answer, but there can be changes. The second ammendment has been around since the beginning of our great country. Removing guns will not change the problem. What if he had been a bomb nut? He spent the majority of his time on the computer, and it could of happened. Regulation should be better, but also mental health programs need to improve. She was a legal gun holder, and she denied her son had a problem. Open discussion of mental illness would go a long way in helping people that have that problem. It will happen again. Evil cannot be removed from our world.
ReplyDeleteHello there! How do you feel about ads of any kinds on blogging resources?
ReplyDelete