...at least in regards to it being a political "issue," is that it's, ultimately, ridiculous. I mean, you can make arguments about how guns are designed to kill people, or about how having them is a part of your Constitutionally Protected Rights and Freedoms, or whatever, but really, what it comes down to is this: Some people are not mentally or emotionally equipped to have access to explosives. And, no, those people shouldn't be ABLE to get them.
The thing is, there are two types of gun deaths -- accidents and not accidents. Accidents are horrible and tragic, yes, but in many cases tighter gun control would not necessarily have prevented them. I am most affected by the story I read many years ago in a now-defunct women's magazine about a woman who, along with her husband, bought a handgun after a rash of home break-ins in their neighborhood. They left it, loaded, on an accessible shelf in their closet, and completely forgot its existence until, one day, their two year old daughter found it and accidentally killed herself. This was the reason this woman was shilling for tighter gun control laws -- she was stupid and irresponsible, and someone died who shouldn't have. Stupidity is NOT the government's fault, people! (Ok, well, some of it is. But not that. If you're not smart enough to figure out how to safely handle and store a handgun, you're right, you don't deserve to have one. But how is anyone supposed to test your ability to follow basic common-sense measures, or, indeed, any sort of gun/hunter's safety?)
In the non-accident category, you have your basic "Dude who has completely flipped and lost his shit" shooting sprees and you have "Dude who has no moral compass and doesn't care who he hurts" killing sprees. Some of the weapons used in these were obtained legally. Some were not. The only way to tell if someone's going to snap and turn into a killing ball of rage is MAYBE a psychological examination. But maybe not. And truthfully, anyone who's THAT determined to hurt people? Well, making it harder for him (or her) to legally purchase guns may help a little. But truthfully? Probably not much. He can go for illegal weapons. Or use non-regulated stuff like knives. Or get online and learn how to make a bomb using common household ingredients. Or, y'know. SOMEthing. Tighter regulations might delay him a bit, but they won't stop him, whatever his motivation.
So, yeah, tighten things up. People with nothing to hide won't be deterred. Some might even welcome more common-sense regulations, like the hunter-safety courses that are required to get hunting licenses, or the periodically required driving tests we have to undergo in order to renew our driver's licenses.
But really? Don't use it as the entire basis of your decision on how to vote. Because that's just as ridiculously mindless a reason to affiliate yourself politically as is the assertion (Yes, I'm sad to admit to knowing someone who thinks this) that women shouldn't vote because they only vote for the most attractive candidate, rather than the one who's "right" on the issues (and how subjective is THAT, by the way?!).
'Cause the truth is, if I voted via wet-panties, I'd have to go Republican -- some of those guys are frigging HOT. However, their ridiculous assertions and obvious backtracking, not to mention their complete disregard for such issues as "Separation of Church and State," "Women's Health and Self-Determination," and "Human Rights" make them deplorable excuses for human beings, and the only way they'd get my vote is if the Democratic side of things started suddenly spouting the same nonsense syllables my seven-year-old claims as his "made-up language" in every appearance/interview/what have you.
Not that I don't believe that most politicians would benefit from the same discipline my kids are subject to from time to time, but that kind of backsliding can really scare a girl!
No comments:
Post a Comment