There has been so much fanfare about the recent failure of the senate to pass gun control legislation. Facebook was all over it last week. The people on the left side of this argument are angry with the NRA for exerting its considerable influence over the senators. The people on the right are angry that legislation is being considered as a “feel good” measure only.
First of all, I want to be as safe as the next person, but I
I also completely understand another person’s fascination and attraction to guns. Not all gun owners and wannabe gun owners are crazy. As much as I abhor them, I can see why some people find them fascinating and cool, much like cars, computers, and rockets. I think they can serve a useful purpose and I admit, I have imagined trying one out at a gun range.
I have just a couple of problems with this gun business and they illustrate quite nicely why I am on a fence…..
I am not sure why individuals need to own guns that can fire several hundred rounds per minute (and that number is conservative). I just double-checked the calendar and it is, indeed, 2013. The British, Spanish, and French are long gone and currently, no country is attempting to expand its empire, north, south, east or west. I think the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself…So, defending ourselves against foreign (or domestic) interests seems far fetched, at least to me. I am decidedly all in favor of limiting and perhaps even banning assault weapons. No fence needed.
I am also very much a sister to those who would prefer people who are not of sound mind or who have broken some major, bad ass laws be kept as far away from guns as possible. Good idea. For sure. The only problem I see is that these types of people are not the ones walking into gun stores and shopping around. They get their guns from people who have passed those safeguard checks. Expanding the background checks will not make me feel safer, even a little bit. The bad people are bad people. They steal, trespass, lie, and shoot at the good guys. So passing a law that only tightens background checks seems like a law to make everyone feel better even if it won’t actually make them safer. Personally, it feels like a waste of time.
So what to do? Clearly, we have a big problem in this country. A lot of people own guns, too many. I do admit cheering for the storeowner who, when a bad guy tries to unlawfully grab his money, deftly procures a gun and says, “Make my day,” aka Clint style. Love those stories, they never get old. Yay for guns!
Then there are the tragic stories of children examining a gun they have discovered and it goes off, maiming or killing someone - heartbreaking episodes that leave me filled with anger and grief for that child.
I would like to think that gun owners keep guns in secure, locked locations, far away from children, and would be thieves. Some do, but far too many do not.
A few months ago, I read that locally, some children found a gun and one fatally shot the other by accident. It turns out that the father owned several guns and he kept them hidden in very clever places all over the home - in a basket of laundry (it was in the basement, so it was all good) in a duffle bag in a closet (dark, so that for sure, is safe), and under his pillow (completely safe) and that one was loaded, ready to go for God knows what…I don’t know what to think of this guy. Kids explore everywhere, they leave no stone unturned, nothing is secret (they get it from looking for the Christmas presents, duh). The guy was grief stricken and I wanted to throttle him.
Here is what I suggest:
1. We should require IQ tests, in addition to background checks because stupid people should not own guns, period. Sadly, there are a lot of stupid people out there.
2. We should check the level of testosterone in a candidate’s blood. The higher the level, the smaller the gun. Period.
3. We should punish, in the harshest way, any gun owner who does not lock up his or her guns. If they are stolen because they were available, then that owner should be held responsible for the subsequent consequences from that gun. If an innocent misuses it because it is not locked, then the gun owner gets in big, bad trouble. Grieving is NOT punishment enough.
I believe in the right to bear arms. I also believe that those arms do not need to be sufficient to wipe out a village. I think we should limit the amount and type a person should own and should be able to legislate how they must be stored.
I am just not sure how to do all of that. Until I do, I am staying on the fence.
Hum, lots to contemplate for sure! I am more on the fence about the Constitution. There is an implicit question about the reason for the Second Amendment, and if you are forced as I was to delve into the notes and letters of the founders, you find that one of the prime reasons for the right to keep and bear arms was the Southern states' fear of slave rebellions, and their demand to be allowed to be armed in order to put down black revolts. At least in part, the Second Amendment is rooted in fear, and not just a reasonable fear of invasion or of abuse of power, but fear that slaves might rise up against their masters.
ReplyDeleteWhen one thinks about the Second Amendment in this context, it takes on a different aspect. Nor does the Constitution shield violence, regardless of what some may think; what, as a result of one compromise too many, it does allow for is violence against a servile group, perpetrated by their masters, neither of which now exist, and for which no shield is either appropriate or required.
In this day and age, this is not just outmoded and unnecessary, but immoral. Yes, barbarity exists in a minority of individuals, but let us not arm them; sooner or later their fear will cost other, innocent people their lives. Additionally I think they were arming themselves with muskets, knives and bows and arrows back in the day which is what was in the minds of our founders, not semi automatic weapons with the ability to shoot off hundreds of rounds at a time. Do you follow CP? He had some interesting thoughts in his latest piece: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/our-violent-country-041813?src=soc_fcbks
The thing about our Constitution is that once an amendment is passed, it is tough to rescind it. That fact is both good and bad. Good, when we pass good laws but bad when we pass bad laws. Whatever the origins of the second amendment, it isn't ikely to be overturned anytime soon. Not everything in the Constitution is great but the beauty of it is that it can be changed, it is just really hard to do. Changing the Constitution should be hard and should strongly reflect the populace. The puzzler to solve with regards to guns, is how to limit the type and number of arms. I do not believe in an outright ban because there are more citizens that use them responsibly than not. I do think, however, legislation is needed to limit them. In my opinion, the bill that was defeated last week didn't go far enough. It was so watered down that it became ineffective and the urgency to pass it was diminished.
DeleteIt will never pass because it means changing the constitution. There will never be an amendment on gun control.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you sit on the fence. It means you have given the issue considerable thought from both sides. Owning a gun as a fear response is dangerous. That is where accidents are most likely to happen. There are families where hunting and shooting are as common as hockey is in yours. Children are taught gun safety and maintenance. It's a hard issue all the way around.
Totally agree and I agree that the second amendment will never be overturned. That means we have to figure something out that protects gunowners' rights and keeps us safe. What that may look like is unclear to me. I see both sides and am not really passionate either way because of where I sit.
Delete