Just Another Rant I Suppose:
Dec. 14th, 2012 08:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack_babalonOkay I have a few thoughts on today's tragedy that I'd like to share, after reflecting upon today's horrific events. I'll endeavor to be as brief as possible and without being disrespectful of anyone's point of view:
1. First off let's stop threatening to 'un-friend' each other or anyone who is not responding to this tragedy in a manner that conforms to our individual political ideology. From what little I understand, there hasn't been much solved in our world by systematically ignoring those with whom we disagree about how to make it better.
2. I am, despite my otherwise progressive leanings, not opposed to the 2nd Amendment. I do not support the majority being denied any right because of the horrendous or ignorant decisions of the few. There are countless deaths in this country due to automobile accidents and it wouldn't make sense to abolish a citizen's right to own one because of them. However, that said, I cannot quite understand most 2nd amendment proponents objection to more extensive background checks before they are allowed to be sold a firearm, or a mandatory waiting period before purchase is possible and of limiting the available firepower available to a citizen. I live in a country where I can't so much as ride as a passenger on an airplane without having my identity scrutinized through a national data base to ensure I'm not a member of a terrorist organization, suspected or otherwise. Is it really such a blow to our collective liberties that I cannot possess an instrument whose only purpose is killing without going through a comparable back ground check?
3. Now a common argument I'm seeing, from both members of my social network and various media pundits on the issue is that proposing laws that regulate firearms is pointless. After all murder is illegal, yet it still occurs. The individual responsible for today's rampage certainly didn't heed the laws of our land so what would make us think that other monstrous individuals wouldn't behave exactly the same despite any legislative efforts to the contrary. But by that reasoning one could condone abolishing any laws we have against murder predicated on the fact that murder still occurs despite them. However I maintain, that the logic of such laws isn't to make these acts impossible, but rather to make their occurrence less frequent. Allow me to give an example. I'm a habitual user of marijuana. And yes, I do so regardless of the laws of the land prohibiting me from doing so. But I can also attest first hand, that these laws make the procurement of my vice of choice much more difficult to indulge in. I cannot purchase a bag without great price, the expenditure of much time and facing serious repercussions should I be caught doing so. My point is that, while stricter gun control laws won't stop rampages like today from happening they may cut down on the frequency with which they occur.
4. Finally, I know some think that the victims of today's rampage may still be alive if they were similarly armed. But how would that have worked exactly? I cannot imagine even the most ardent right-winger believing that those children should have been armed, so what then? The teachers and school faculty should be issued weaponry under the presumption they may be asked to participate in a firefight? Should every American then be required to carry a firearm at all times and be prepared to use them when seen fit? Is there anyone that doubts how that would play out? Can you imagine the death toll we'd see on a Black Friday sale if everyone there was armed to the teeth. So again, while I don't advocate the elimination of gun sales, I do believe it's time for a national reevaluation on their ease of availability. If stricter gun control laws meant that we suffered only one less national tragedy on the scale we've seen today then I feel they would be well worth the momentary inconvenience law abiding citizens would face for their being imposed.
Okay, I'll shut up now, thanks for listening.
1. First off let's stop threatening to 'un-friend' each other or anyone who is not responding to this tragedy in a manner that conforms to our individual political ideology. From what little I understand, there hasn't been much solved in our world by systematically ignoring those with whom we disagree about how to make it better.
2. I am, despite my otherwise progressive leanings, not opposed to the 2nd Amendment. I do not support the majority being denied any right because of the horrendous or ignorant decisions of the few. There are countless deaths in this country due to automobile accidents and it wouldn't make sense to abolish a citizen's right to own one because of them. However, that said, I cannot quite understand most 2nd amendment proponents objection to more extensive background checks before they are allowed to be sold a firearm, or a mandatory waiting period before purchase is possible and of limiting the available firepower available to a citizen. I live in a country where I can't so much as ride as a passenger on an airplane without having my identity scrutinized through a national data base to ensure I'm not a member of a terrorist organization, suspected or otherwise. Is it really such a blow to our collective liberties that I cannot possess an instrument whose only purpose is killing without going through a comparable back ground check?
3. Now a common argument I'm seeing, from both members of my social network and various media pundits on the issue is that proposing laws that regulate firearms is pointless. After all murder is illegal, yet it still occurs. The individual responsible for today's rampage certainly didn't heed the laws of our land so what would make us think that other monstrous individuals wouldn't behave exactly the same despite any legislative efforts to the contrary. But by that reasoning one could condone abolishing any laws we have against murder predicated on the fact that murder still occurs despite them. However I maintain, that the logic of such laws isn't to make these acts impossible, but rather to make their occurrence less frequent. Allow me to give an example. I'm a habitual user of marijuana. And yes, I do so regardless of the laws of the land prohibiting me from doing so. But I can also attest first hand, that these laws make the procurement of my vice of choice much more difficult to indulge in. I cannot purchase a bag without great price, the expenditure of much time and facing serious repercussions should I be caught doing so. My point is that, while stricter gun control laws won't stop rampages like today from happening they may cut down on the frequency with which they occur.
4. Finally, I know some think that the victims of today's rampage may still be alive if they were similarly armed. But how would that have worked exactly? I cannot imagine even the most ardent right-winger believing that those children should have been armed, so what then? The teachers and school faculty should be issued weaponry under the presumption they may be asked to participate in a firefight? Should every American then be required to carry a firearm at all times and be prepared to use them when seen fit? Is there anyone that doubts how that would play out? Can you imagine the death toll we'd see on a Black Friday sale if everyone there was armed to the teeth. So again, while I don't advocate the elimination of gun sales, I do believe it's time for a national reevaluation on their ease of availability. If stricter gun control laws meant that we suffered only one less national tragedy on the scale we've seen today then I feel they would be well worth the momentary inconvenience law abiding citizens would face for their being imposed.
Okay, I'll shut up now, thanks for listening.
no subject
on 2012-12-15 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
on 2012-12-15 03:02 pm (UTC)