That said, my family owns guns. I know plenty of people who own guns. mean, come on; I grew up in Idaho and now I live in Utah. If I had a problem with guns, I would not have stayed in "gun country." I've been around guns. I've held guns. I personally do not want a gun, but I understand the people who do want them and have them.
I also understand those who don't like guns. I can sympathize with those who feel that guns are dangerous and no one should have them. Maybe guns don't kill people, but they sure assist someone in doing just that. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a bunny than a gun.
Guns do tend to protect people. There's a pretty big caveat with that, though- guns are only effective in protection when wielded by someone who knows what the hell they're doing. The reason I don't own a gun is because I do not have training when it comes to guns. I would not trust myself to handle one properly when under the extreme stress that comes with a situation where you need a gun. Could I fight back if attacked? Sure, you bet I could. But could I trust myself with a gun the same way I trust myself with a bow or with knives? Not really.
The dispute over guns is one that will not go away, ever. Guns are a huge part of our history. Gun violence is also a part of that same history. We have far more gun-related deaths than other comparable countries. We also have far more relaxed gun laws than other countries.
The incident in Arizona was the catalyst that comes along every few years- it was Virginia Tech before that, and Columbine before that. Every time, it is the same back and forth- guns kill people vs. guns save lives.
We're not going to get anywhere any time soon with that argument. I could bring up the Second Amendment, and my personal interpretation of that, but it's not going to be particularly relevant. My suggestion is this- perhaps we need to take a better look at the way guns are treated, and the way they are tracked, rather than how many are sold and where they are carried.
Guns are a convenient tool for violence. Do they increase violence? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that could be truly proven. Would there be violence even if we got rid of guns completely, world-wide? Of course. We've been beating the crap out of each other since antiquity, and we will continue to do so. But maybe it would be better if we actually understood who had guns, and where those guns were going.
We can track people by using Twitter and Facebook. We have security cameras covering the developed world. Why, then, do we not have a sufficient gun tracking system? Why have they not engineered some way to follow guns as they move through the country?
And why are weapons permits a state right? Why do states get to choose how certified a person can be to own a weapon that could potentially affect someone in a different state? What good does New York's attitude towards guns do if someone in Utah hardly has to do a thing to get a weapon?
With all the proposed legislation to allow guns on various college campuses, and legislation to designate "State Guns," trying to argue that we should eliminate guns is futile. They aren't going away. To argue that guns make people safe is ultimately just as futile, because guns were constructed to kill, not to save.
The argument is not whether or not people have the right to a gun. The argument ought to be how we assess whether or not someone is mentally and physically capable of using a gun in a "safe" way. The argument ought to be how we implement a system of assessment in a universal way, rather than state-by-state.
The reality is that guns don't kill people- people who can't use guns in a responsible way kill people.
South Dakota--my home state, god help them--has a legislator who has introduced a bill requiring that all citizens of the state own a gun. He's not really serious; he's trying--badly--to make a point about requiring health insurance. of course, the two concepts are miles apart. Geez, this world is full of idiots. Good thing you and I have minds that work!
ReplyDelete