Perhaps nothing touches human emotion like the death of a child. While any death is sad and tragic, it is hard to see a young life's passing as not being senseless and unnecessary. I guess we can see rationale behind an adult's death at times: the person's own actions led them to it (think Darwin Awards), the person was evil and deserved it (think Hitler or Osama bin Laden), or perhaps death was best for an elderly who has been in pain for a long time. For a young child however, it is hard to imagine these things. This is why their deaths are so emotional, and the biggest reason why the shootings at Newtown were do different from all the shootings that preceded it and that will undoubtedly follow.
When the NRA kept silent for about a week after the Newtown shooting, I was hopeful that perhaps they were doing some serious soul searching and would finally come out with some meaningful options and compromises. Their eventual suggestion, to arm teachers with guns, confirmed to me that the NRA has absolutely no interest in seeing things change. They do not see the killings in Newton as any more of a rallying cry for gun control than the death of some gang member in an inner-city. They care about one thing and one thing only, the ability of gun manufacturers to continue selling guns and for "macho" gun owners to continue adding to their collection.
This week Congress is holding hearings on gun control. There are a number of proposals on the table which should be common sense and frankly do not go far enough for many people, including me. The proposals are to ban assault rifles, limit magazine capacity, and require background checks on ALL gun sales. I cannot understand why these are so disagreeable. Nobody needs an assault rifle. I was recently reading a hunting magazine (that is mostly all that is available in East Texas) where the author was specifically mentioning how an assault rifle is not used for hunting. It is not used for sport either and nor for self defense. So what is it for besides war and killing as many people as possible in the least amount of time? Ditto for high capacity magazines. Even shotguns are restricted in how many shells can be loaded at one time for a hunt. The reason: to give the game a fair chance. What is incredible is we allow deers and ducks a fair chance but not innocent people in a theater or classroom! Finally there is the question of background checks. Everyone, including the NRA, agrees that it is a mentally deranged individual that goes on a shooting spree. So why not try to implement a method that tries to prevent that individual from getting a gun in the first place?
During these hearings on gun control, the NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre also provided testimony. One of his core messages was that law-abiding gun owners should not be burdened due to the actions of bad people. My question is why not Mr LaPierre? Law abiding citizens are "burdened" in many things in our daily lives to prevent abuse and mis-use. Here are some examples:
These controls may not stop everyone nor prevent another shooting from taking place. But if they prevent even one more Newtown from happening, it would all be worth it.
When the NRA kept silent for about a week after the Newtown shooting, I was hopeful that perhaps they were doing some serious soul searching and would finally come out with some meaningful options and compromises. Their eventual suggestion, to arm teachers with guns, confirmed to me that the NRA has absolutely no interest in seeing things change. They do not see the killings in Newton as any more of a rallying cry for gun control than the death of some gang member in an inner-city. They care about one thing and one thing only, the ability of gun manufacturers to continue selling guns and for "macho" gun owners to continue adding to their collection.
This week Congress is holding hearings on gun control. There are a number of proposals on the table which should be common sense and frankly do not go far enough for many people, including me. The proposals are to ban assault rifles, limit magazine capacity, and require background checks on ALL gun sales. I cannot understand why these are so disagreeable. Nobody needs an assault rifle. I was recently reading a hunting magazine (that is mostly all that is available in East Texas) where the author was specifically mentioning how an assault rifle is not used for hunting. It is not used for sport either and nor for self defense. So what is it for besides war and killing as many people as possible in the least amount of time? Ditto for high capacity magazines. Even shotguns are restricted in how many shells can be loaded at one time for a hunt. The reason: to give the game a fair chance. What is incredible is we allow deers and ducks a fair chance but not innocent people in a theater or classroom! Finally there is the question of background checks. Everyone, including the NRA, agrees that it is a mentally deranged individual that goes on a shooting spree. So why not try to implement a method that tries to prevent that individual from getting a gun in the first place?
During these hearings on gun control, the NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre also provided testimony. One of his core messages was that law-abiding gun owners should not be burdened due to the actions of bad people. My question is why not Mr LaPierre? Law abiding citizens are "burdened" in many things in our daily lives to prevent abuse and mis-use. Here are some examples:
- Airport security - I intend no harm, so why do I have to stand in line and go through the x-ray?
- Prescription medicine - I am responsible to know what I need to take and how many, why do I need a doctor and pharmacist?
- Drinking at 21 - I was an adult at 18, so why can I not get a drink just because some 18-21 year olds binge drink?
In these cases and for that matter any instance where there is security or checks, honest, law-abiding, and honorable people are burdened to prevent abuse. In cases such as airport security this is a good thing, because I am willing to wait 10 minutes and go through a hassle to ensure some crazy person does not kill me. I would think gun owners would feel the same way. And even if they do not, I think the public has a right to demand it to ensure their own safety. Surely gun owners can take on a little burden to prevent another innocent child from dying.
These controls may not stop everyone nor prevent another shooting from taking place. But if they prevent even one more Newtown from happening, it would all be worth it.
3 comments:
**deleted and edited for typos**
I'll respectfully disagree.
Firstly, I don't own a so-called "assault rifle" (the specific definition of which might surprise you: e.g., "has a pistol grip", ooh, how scary), and I don't have the $1000 to waste on such a toy, either. So I don't anticipate owning one in the future. So whether or not such a law is passed has little bearing on my own life.
However, I have a deep philosophical reservation against adding laws and burdens to citizens which will result in no positive effect. A second point: I deeply disdain fear-mongering and reflexive governance...using an emotional tragedy to push through a controversial piece of legislation. This is the antithesis of wise governance.
There are currently 9 guns for every 10 humans in the USA. I fail to see how any of these laws will act to reduce that number by a factor of 100...which is probably the amount necessary to see change. Secondly, why would it be reasonable to think that those bent on destruction wouldn't obtain these weapons regardless of the laws. These recent horrific events underscore that the perpetrators planned and waited until the right time for their evil acts. They would have found a way to obtain these weapons, no matter the legal consequences.
In terms of the NRA...what did you expect? We all know they are crazy. So don't paint gun ownership with the same brush. Your last post dealt with Energy...many of the same people who despise the gun lobby feel just as strongly about the Oil lobby. But as a fine employee of an oil company, I'm sure you can attest that the oil lobby's views are not necessarily the same as yours or many of your colleagues.
First, let me clear that my objection is primarily with the NRA and not gun owners. I know plenty of very responsible gun owners and I myself enjoy sports shooting a lot. Of course I fiercely oppose hunting, but there too, most hunters I know are very responsible with their guns. Unfortunately the NRA has become the face of gun owners. Perhaps there is room for another more sane organization that can speak for the intelligent gun owners out there.
The point of my post was that adding burden to law-abiding citizens is no reason to not enact a law. We have plenty of examples where the price of security is a burden but the reward of that security is many times that burden. Guns are no exception. I agree that there will be those that find a way. However, if we can prevent even one person, then it is worth it. Currently some deranged person just buys a gun (or guns) at a gun show or through a private sale without checks. Perhaps, with universal background checks, this person would have to go through many (illegal) hoops to get one and decide it is not worth it. We see such things for example with other things such as drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, where there is a high barrier for an illegal purchase and therefore many do not go there. Of course, many find a way still, but again, if we have prevented even one person - then it is worth it.
On governance, I completely agree that knee-jerk governance is the worst kind. However, I can also argue that 2012 had a string of incidences that were begging for action. Newtown was clearly the proverbial straw, but I think it was also the rallying cry that many needed. It is not knee-jerk; it is responding to a situation. The US needs to take a hard long look at this issue, for it is a problem and needs a solution. That solution will require compromises and crazy organizations like the NRA do not help the discussion.
By the way, I love reading your comments. You taking the time is much appreciated and reminds me constantly why I miss us living in the same city.
Post a Comment