You may as well unfriend me now if you support the ownership of guns in the U.S.
Newtown, CT. is my tipping point, from which there is no return. I can see no reason for there to be a gun in any home. I don’t care about the idea that you need to protect yourself, or that only criminals will have guns if we take guns out of the hands of good, law-bidin’ people. I don’t care if you like guns, but would never shoot children. The ownership of guns and a stubborn resistance against calling people out for owning them, the problem of having these weapons of easy and thoughtless violence in our hands, is the problem.
It’s not the crazy people problem. Crazy people kill people with what’s at hand, but people have a better chance of survival against a knife rather than a gun. It’s not an irresponsible gun owner problem. Most of the guns in the hands of criminals come from regular channels. It’s not a lack of training. It’s not facism taking away our self-defense. It’s not even a chance that the government may try to get you to do what you don’t want, and you need to shoot someone. What the fuck ever.
What it is is the sheer availability of guns. So children can shoot each other. So crazy people can shoot children. So disgruntled children can snap and kill Mom and Dad. So angry lovers can passionately kill each other. So malls, homes, churches, movie theaters and schools become places where you don’t feel safe because there are crazy people out there with guns. Our response? Should we buy guns to protect ourselves, carry concealed weapons, praise God and pass the ammunition, because a man and a woman need to defend ourselves in these horrible times?
Or would it be wiser to get the hell rid of the guns? Because you know, if you’re trying to kill a bunch of people in a mall, and you can’t get, say, a gun, or explosives, or weapons, what are you going to do? Be very frustrated, but not become a mass shooter.
Statistics, Schaff-Stump? We don’t need no stinkin’ statistics, but Tobias Buckell has done that work for you anyhow, and saved me some. Go read. Go read.
What, you may ask has triggered this? If this killing of tiny, innocent babies with automatic weapons that someone’s MOM just had around the house isn’t enough, I have no idea what it would take to cure this country of this strange mental illness and paranoia. Guys, the government is not going to take away your liberty. You don’t need these guns. You strange, paranoid weirdos.
One set of my in-laws, my husband’s oldest brother and his wife, who have recently decided they are going full on Tea Party, are going to get guns for themselves in light of this recent tragedy. I am amazed.
And you know, living here in tiny Cedar Rapids, twice as big as Newtown, I have lived every day of my married life knowing that the statistic could be my high school teaching husband. Or even myself, as we had a shooting lock down at my college last year. It just takes one crazy person who gets his or her hands on one of the guns made available for the public to kill with by the paranoid antiquated second amendment.
Shame on you. And shame on us for letting you continue to keep them.
And some people are saying that all teachers should be armed and trained, using Israel as an example. (I don’t even know if Israel is an accurate example, but they’re using it, and it alarms me). The problem with de-arming is that even advocates will admit it’s unlikely to happen in the U.S. There are simply too, too many guns already in play. Working on accessibility going forward is much more plausible. I’m not saying it isn’t a grand idea, but unfortunately it simply won’t work.
I would be happy to see us move forward with a more restrictive law.
I would also be happy to see us repeal the 2nd amendment and have amnesty collection points.
I don’t believe that it simply won’t work. Or that we shouldn’t try it because it’s too difficult. I find these arguments to be problematic in the face of future loss of life, and I would say that an attempt is better than a write off in this case.
And I am also not wild about teaching having a sudden component of frontiermanship or law enforcement, but if you take the guns out of the system, well, hey, it becomes a moot point.
Do you really think that banning guns will remove all guns from a territory?
Nope. That would be naive.
BUT banning guns would steadily lessen the number of guns. That argument of “we can’t get rid of all guns, so therefore we shouldn’t try to get rid of any guns” is a logical fallacy.
I strongly suspect that America would have to be weened off its addiction to guns. Where would be a logical place to start? How’s about a ban on automatic assault weapons? Could people be convinced that those guns ought not be available? Probably.
If you look at other countries around the worlds and death by shooting, you’re going to see a statistically different significance. Those countries don’t have the sheer numbers of guns. They also don’t have a steady diet of angry and paranoid media, and violence condoned in media. They also have a variety of different requirements for owning guns.
But no, I suspect that this would have to be a gradual process, even though I would like things to happen right now. Just this morning, more news about 3 people killed in a violent shooting, a woman her sister, and the sister’s husband all killed by a jealous ex-boyfriend before he took his own life. Another national news item. Could this man have gotten a gun even if we had gun control? Maybe.
But hey, maybe not. Since a lack of gun control is obviously not working, I think we should give it a try.
Who said we shouldn’t try? Reducing the number of guns, while doubtless difficult, is likely do-able. Eliminating them is something else.
I’ve been discussing this the past few days (who hasn’t?); the most interesting, non-impossible large-change suggestion I’ve heard is one for repealing the 2nd Amendment (as was done with 18th Amendment (Prohibition of Alcohol) which is still on the books but not active). This would eliminate the “right” to bear arms, but it would be up to the states to determine what was allowable. It would fracture the nation further, however, which makes it less attractive.
Lisa, I would love to see a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Bryon and I have been chatting about just that, and the way to avoid national schism, he thinks, is to go slow. Like an automatic weapons ban first, and then slow but steady progression.
I am very interested to hear what the NRA has to say Friday. It would be a great opportunity for them to reinvent themselves and address this tragedy.
A good idea I’ve heard floated is to, well, throw money at it. MADD didn’t eliminate drunk driving but has made great improvements. Perhaps we need a similar organization.
I do think there’s something counterintuitive and intellectually dishonest in claiming the solution to gun violence is more guns.