This weekend, in two separate incidents, troubled and terrorist white men went and killed 29 people in mass shootings. We grieve and mourn and proclaim 'thoughts and prayers'. And everytime this happens we seek to change hearts. We continue to wonder whether we are next. We hope that something, anything, will change.
One of the things that is screamed anytime this happens is a demand for more gun control legislation. The blood is on the hands of the NRA and the conservatives who continue to resist these things, it is claimed. Occasionally there will be some slight reform in background checks and waiting periods and in the particular types of weapons that can be purchased. But it's still easier to get a gun in this country than it is to get many medications or health care.
I don't know all the answers, because there are at least three main obstacles to real change. First, it is estimated that 300 million guns already exist in this country, enough for every man, woman, and child to have one. Outlawing the sales of guns tomorrow will not change the fact that these guns are already out there...and since they are made of metal they are not biodegradable. The poison is already in the system. We should have done something about this a half century ago when that guy went up and started shooting from the tower at UT-Austin. But we didn't, and now we are reaping the fruit of our inaction.
Second, many of these 300 million guns are owned by people who love them more than life itself and will fight to keep them from being taken away. For decades now part of the fear-mongering of the gun lobby is that 'the government will only take these guns from our cold, dead hands', and I fear that there would be dozens, if not hundreds of shootouts if law enforcement comes to seize guns. It makes me think of our country almost two centuries ago...the 'peculiar institution' slavery was a cultural way of life for many to the point that an entire civil war was fought to defend it, and over half a million people died. And even if we fought that war to take the guns away from the diehards, do we really think that we would get them all? Because these guns have mostly not been registered and traced over the years, how many tens of millions would be hidden away in the meantime?
Finally, extreme gun control denies the fact that some think that they genuinely need protection. This may be a rural thing, in that many do not have effective law enforcement nearby in case of trouble...but even within the city, some hold onto guns not to kill but to protect their families. I feel for those who live their lives in fear to the point that they arm themselves, and while I feel that many of the fears are unfounded (and arming oneself only exacerbates the problem, not solves it), people do what they feel is right to defend their property and family. I can respect that.
So, what do we do? I do think that legislation banning most future gun sales is a better option than doing nothing. I believe that we need to work on the hearts of the people who have been told for decades that violence is the best response to threat. And I believe that we need to find ways to register and make traceable the many guns that are out there and make gun owners liable for their weapons, much as in the OT law people were liable for the violent behavior of their animals (Exodus 21:29).
But one action that I think would be effective but I've never heard mentioned to me is the simplest of all solutions: ban and/or severely restrict and legislate the sale of ammunition. Guns don't kill people...ammunition kills people! Yes, there are certainly billions of pieces of ammunition out there now, and any future ammunition must be easily traceable by law enforcement, again making it easier to catch future violent offenders.
Let's go further: Even if there are billions of rounds out there, why do we keep adding to the stockpiles? Want to go and shoot off your guns at a range because you have the need to express yourself that way? Every bullet you shoot is accounted for, and every bullet is heavily taxed with the proceeds going towards gun violence. Police and military bullets? Again, heavily regulated, with soldiers and police having to account for all their weaponry and severe consequences abound when they go missing.
Perhaps someday all the stored up ammunition would be used up, and those who decide commit murder will have to return to the old fashioned weapons of stone and knives. People will always still be killed, because violence is inherent in fallen humanity; but perhaps there will be a lot less killed if they can't shoot off 60 rounds in a minute because they couldn't find ammunition to purchase.
Why does this have to be so hard? Nothing we do will change things overnight...but we can at least start now so that 50 years from we don't keep having this problem.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Monday, August 5, 2019
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Duck and Cover and Die Anyway
My wife, who is a preschool teacher, spent her entire Saturday morning in a preparedness training session concerning gun violence. She went through a variety of scenarios about parents holding children hostage or enraged gunmen storming her daycare.
My children regularly in their school have 'lockdown' drills. Our high school this year will have new, stricter entry policies to reduce the possibility that gunmen or other undesirables are able to gain access to the interior of the building.
Every month at our bus driver monthly safety meetings we go over the many terrible possibilities that could happen on our buses. We have lifesaving training that includes gunshot wound packing, violence de-escalation techniques, and other types of scenarios that hopefully we will never have to use.
-----------------
In the 1950s school kids across America were taught the technique of 'Duck and Cover'. In the case of a nuclear detonation, it was thought that such outcomes might save a few lives, and in fact there is some evidence that having even the slightest shield from the radiation might well reduce the exposure and save a life. Such techniques are today widely ridiculed, with the idea that 'if a nuclear explosion happens, what's the point of getting under a desk'? Indeed, it seems quite ridiculous...better to not have a nuclear explosion. Somewhere along the way as a nation things de-escalated to the point that I don't know that kids have to worry about nuclear annihilation.
But today, since the time that they were very small, my kids have been well aware that it's possible some nutjob with an automatic weapon could come in and start blasting away killing them or their teachers or classmates. They live with this possibility just as much as I grew up doing tornado drills in Oklahoma.
It's a sad statement on our world that these realities are so possible today. We live in a world of such horrific and sustained violence even as there is such an unwillingness to get to the causes of violence. We'd rather have drill after drill to prepare us for their eventuality, and many believe that the best defense is a good offense. Surely, it is thought, that teachers and citizens packing heat will deter the violence. Give everybody a gun, they say, and we'll all be safer.
----------------
Today a guy walked into a WalMart in El Paso, Texas and killed at least 20 people.
My children regularly in their school have 'lockdown' drills. Our high school this year will have new, stricter entry policies to reduce the possibility that gunmen or other undesirables are able to gain access to the interior of the building.
Every month at our bus driver monthly safety meetings we go over the many terrible possibilities that could happen on our buses. We have lifesaving training that includes gunshot wound packing, violence de-escalation techniques, and other types of scenarios that hopefully we will never have to use.
-----------------
In the 1950s school kids across America were taught the technique of 'Duck and Cover'. In the case of a nuclear detonation, it was thought that such outcomes might save a few lives, and in fact there is some evidence that having even the slightest shield from the radiation might well reduce the exposure and save a life. Such techniques are today widely ridiculed, with the idea that 'if a nuclear explosion happens, what's the point of getting under a desk'? Indeed, it seems quite ridiculous...better to not have a nuclear explosion. Somewhere along the way as a nation things de-escalated to the point that I don't know that kids have to worry about nuclear annihilation.
But today, since the time that they were very small, my kids have been well aware that it's possible some nutjob with an automatic weapon could come in and start blasting away killing them or their teachers or classmates. They live with this possibility just as much as I grew up doing tornado drills in Oklahoma.
It's a sad statement on our world that these realities are so possible today. We live in a world of such horrific and sustained violence even as there is such an unwillingness to get to the causes of violence. We'd rather have drill after drill to prepare us for their eventuality, and many believe that the best defense is a good offense. Surely, it is thought, that teachers and citizens packing heat will deter the violence. Give everybody a gun, they say, and we'll all be safer.
----------------
Today a guy walked into a WalMart in El Paso, Texas and killed at least 20 people.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Another Shooting
It could be just about any day when I sadly announce, 'There's been another mass shooting'. It doesn't matter when, it doesn't matter where, it doesn't matter that it happened in a red state at a school where there were armed officers. We live in a nation that loves our guns perhaps more than anything else. I confess that I'm almost numb to it, and can only pray that it doesn't happen here. I'm sick of all the rationalizations that come from the gun lobby as to why we shouldn't do anything about this, from 'well, abortion kills far more people!' to 'We need guns to the good guys safe!' to 'I can't think for myself so I have to let the NRA think for me!' to 'We've got to have a well armed citizenry so that we can be free from government tyrany!' Only three of those four have been spoken, but they are all real.
Once again, we have thoughts and prayers for the victims of the families, we put our flags at half-staff, and we engage for a day or two in an endless debate about what to do that will change nothing. It's easy to put all the blame on guns and their supporters for this, but in fact both extremes are wrong.
The liberals are forever going to be ineffective in fixing this because they are unrealistic in their hysteria. "We need new laws to stop this NOW." New laws won't change the fact that there are already 300,000,000 guns out there...even if no guns were sold in the next twenty years, there's still going to be plenty of weaponry out there to keep up with these shootings. New laws won't change the fact that some people DO need guns...if you live in rural areas, one needs them for protection, and hunting is a noble task that should not be eliminated. New laws won't stop the hysteria that will happen if government agents come to confiscate guns...'See, we told you this would happen!' New laws won't change the hearts and minds of the 38% of people who own guns (ironically, the same amount of people who think Trainwreck Trump is doing a heckuva job) and have been fed a diet of fear from the NRA and their willing publicists Faux News.
But ultimately, it's the gun lobby that's more in the wrong because they have lost all common sense. Because they have completely misread the 2nd amendment to be absolutist (amazingly, few of them see that the point of it was to keep a well-regulated militia ready against foreign intrusion) and individualistic (note that it speaks to the people, plural), they resist almost any common sense ideas to regulate the abuses of gun ownership. We regulate the building of cars to take out the most dangerous aspects of them (hello, Pinto's exploding gas tanks), we regulate the safety of new structures built to ensure they can withstand earthquakes and won't poison those who live there, we ensure that chemical plants no longer can dump toxins in rivers (well, until recently, thanks to the impending demise of the EPA under TT). Why can't we have some common sense about guns? 1)If you own guns, you have to own a gun safe. 2)Guns have to be registered at the point of sale. 3)Every gun must be trackable not just in ownership but in ballistic markings...that way we know whose gun was responsible. 4)Let's come to a recognition that the general public does not need to own certain types of high volume, high capacity guns. We don't let people own shoulder missile launchers or tanks...why should anybody be able to own an AK-47? 5)Limit ownership only to those who can pass strict background and safety checks. In the time it took me to get licensed to drive a school bus, I could have bought several guns and gone on multiple rampages...this is wrong. 6)Tax the crap out of ammunition. You you want a trophy to put up on your wall? Fine. But tax ammunition like we tax cigarettes. Make it unappealing to buy. And the money that is collected in this taxation, put aside for victims of gun violence.
In this day and age mass violence would still happen even if all guns were taken away...as long as there are knives, crowbars, and rocks, people will find something to kill other people with. But can't we ate least stop the most egregious examples? Law-abiding people can still own guns...but we have to start changing the tone of the conversation in which hysteria on both left and right take over. Until this happens, the shootings will not stop.
Once again, we have thoughts and prayers for the victims of the families, we put our flags at half-staff, and we engage for a day or two in an endless debate about what to do that will change nothing. It's easy to put all the blame on guns and their supporters for this, but in fact both extremes are wrong.
The liberals are forever going to be ineffective in fixing this because they are unrealistic in their hysteria. "We need new laws to stop this NOW." New laws won't change the fact that there are already 300,000,000 guns out there...even if no guns were sold in the next twenty years, there's still going to be plenty of weaponry out there to keep up with these shootings. New laws won't change the fact that some people DO need guns...if you live in rural areas, one needs them for protection, and hunting is a noble task that should not be eliminated. New laws won't stop the hysteria that will happen if government agents come to confiscate guns...'See, we told you this would happen!' New laws won't change the hearts and minds of the 38% of people who own guns (ironically, the same amount of people who think Trainwreck Trump is doing a heckuva job) and have been fed a diet of fear from the NRA and their willing publicists Faux News.
But ultimately, it's the gun lobby that's more in the wrong because they have lost all common sense. Because they have completely misread the 2nd amendment to be absolutist (amazingly, few of them see that the point of it was to keep a well-regulated militia ready against foreign intrusion) and individualistic (note that it speaks to the people, plural), they resist almost any common sense ideas to regulate the abuses of gun ownership. We regulate the building of cars to take out the most dangerous aspects of them (hello, Pinto's exploding gas tanks), we regulate the safety of new structures built to ensure they can withstand earthquakes and won't poison those who live there, we ensure that chemical plants no longer can dump toxins in rivers (well, until recently, thanks to the impending demise of the EPA under TT). Why can't we have some common sense about guns? 1)If you own guns, you have to own a gun safe. 2)Guns have to be registered at the point of sale. 3)Every gun must be trackable not just in ownership but in ballistic markings...that way we know whose gun was responsible. 4)Let's come to a recognition that the general public does not need to own certain types of high volume, high capacity guns. We don't let people own shoulder missile launchers or tanks...why should anybody be able to own an AK-47? 5)Limit ownership only to those who can pass strict background and safety checks. In the time it took me to get licensed to drive a school bus, I could have bought several guns and gone on multiple rampages...this is wrong. 6)Tax the crap out of ammunition. You you want a trophy to put up on your wall? Fine. But tax ammunition like we tax cigarettes. Make it unappealing to buy. And the money that is collected in this taxation, put aside for victims of gun violence.
In this day and age mass violence would still happen even if all guns were taken away...as long as there are knives, crowbars, and rocks, people will find something to kill other people with. But can't we ate least stop the most egregious examples? Law-abiding people can still own guns...but we have to start changing the tone of the conversation in which hysteria on both left and right take over. Until this happens, the shootings will not stop.
Monday, June 13, 2016
We Are Screwed
So yesterday morning another lunatic went in and shot up another nightclub and another 50 people died. Lots of questioning going on...was this guy (who had a semi-Muslim name) an ISIS terrorist? Was this a hate crime, since it was a 'gay nightclub' (as most reports said)? Were the guns he bought legally purchased? Why was this guy, who had been questioned by the FBI several years ago, allowed to buy these guns earlier in the week? And why, of course, do politicians of every stripe state their regular blather about 'thoughts and prayers' being with the victims when in fact nobody will do a damned thing about preventing this from happening again next week or next month?
Not long after I arrived at the office this morning a man in the community called seeking advice. Basically it came down to that he felt guilty that he wasn't sufficiently disturbed about what happened. Yes, he would have been more upsetting to him if it happened in a school or somewhere else, but that it was a gay club made him feel bad that he didn't feel bad enough. I honestly admire his concern; I don't know that I helped him, but I did tell him that likely a)we are all weary of these stories, so it is natural to shrug our shoulders...aren't we tired of the outrage? b)The best thing he could do was to show sympathy and compassion and a tender heart to those around him. I wish I would have said (I tried saying it but it didn't come out right) that if you let your heart be led to do compassionate things, then your feelings will follow.
Yet I failed in my advice, because I am so tired of these things and the inevitable gun control arguments, because nothing gets done. The NRA has sufficiently poisoned the waters for so long that there is no hope. If, as I have read in several places, there is a gun for everybody in America, this means there are 300 millions guns out there. 300,000,000, most of them not registered or trackable. So, let's say that Obama puts in a gun control measure tomorrow to make it where there are no more gun purchases, that Wal-Mart really does stop selling AK-47s and pawn shops aren't stocked with walls of guns for whoever would want one...is that going to end the killings?
Let's say that he goes even further, and orders the ATF or FBI or some other agency to start rounding up guns. This would play right into the hands of all the 2nd Amendment crazies, as they proclaim that the government is coming for their guns so that they can oppress the people. How many shootouts would follow? How many guns would be hidden? How many more terrorist attacks would come not in the name of Allah but in the name of Freedom or the Flag or My Rights or whatever else the lingo is today? Once again, the NRA has so allowed so many weapons to be bought over the years (300,000,000) that such a task of even the most draconian government would be impossible.
It's not a question of desire or even will, but simply reality. Perhaps this is why 'thoughts and prayers' still get mentioned...but maybe what we need to pray for is that God will suddenly dissolve all these weapons, like he dissolved manna in the wilderness if it stayed over to the second day. I'm sure that many of the crazies would think that Obama was still at fault for this, but then again I'm not so sure God is desiring to do this. I'm becoming more sure that his judgment on us is that we are simply reaping the fruits of the stupidity we have allowed ourselves to be led into in recent years.
Not long after I arrived at the office this morning a man in the community called seeking advice. Basically it came down to that he felt guilty that he wasn't sufficiently disturbed about what happened. Yes, he would have been more upsetting to him if it happened in a school or somewhere else, but that it was a gay club made him feel bad that he didn't feel bad enough. I honestly admire his concern; I don't know that I helped him, but I did tell him that likely a)we are all weary of these stories, so it is natural to shrug our shoulders...aren't we tired of the outrage? b)The best thing he could do was to show sympathy and compassion and a tender heart to those around him. I wish I would have said (I tried saying it but it didn't come out right) that if you let your heart be led to do compassionate things, then your feelings will follow.
Yet I failed in my advice, because I am so tired of these things and the inevitable gun control arguments, because nothing gets done. The NRA has sufficiently poisoned the waters for so long that there is no hope. If, as I have read in several places, there is a gun for everybody in America, this means there are 300 millions guns out there. 300,000,000, most of them not registered or trackable. So, let's say that Obama puts in a gun control measure tomorrow to make it where there are no more gun purchases, that Wal-Mart really does stop selling AK-47s and pawn shops aren't stocked with walls of guns for whoever would want one...is that going to end the killings?
Let's say that he goes even further, and orders the ATF or FBI or some other agency to start rounding up guns. This would play right into the hands of all the 2nd Amendment crazies, as they proclaim that the government is coming for their guns so that they can oppress the people. How many shootouts would follow? How many guns would be hidden? How many more terrorist attacks would come not in the name of Allah but in the name of Freedom or the Flag or My Rights or whatever else the lingo is today? Once again, the NRA has so allowed so many weapons to be bought over the years (300,000,000) that such a task of even the most draconian government would be impossible.
It's not a question of desire or even will, but simply reality. Perhaps this is why 'thoughts and prayers' still get mentioned...but maybe what we need to pray for is that God will suddenly dissolve all these weapons, like he dissolved manna in the wilderness if it stayed over to the second day. I'm sure that many of the crazies would think that Obama was still at fault for this, but then again I'm not so sure God is desiring to do this. I'm becoming more sure that his judgment on us is that we are simply reaping the fruits of the stupidity we have allowed ourselves to be led into in recent years.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Boston
Yesterday, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, two homemade bombs were set off. 3 people were killed, over a hundred injured, about 20 of those seriously. A horrible, horrible tragedy. Things like that are the product of deranged, angry people whose soul is so warped and cowardly that to stop them completely is likely impossible.
A few other thoughts about what happened...thoughts that are probably not popular, but hey, nobody reads this anyway.
1)The bombing was on 'tax day', April 15, and also recognized as 'patiots' day' in New England. I'm sure that it's been brought up by somebody but I've rarely heard it...does it not seem rather obvious that this was a symbolic day for somebody to show their government-hating bondafides?
2)Many people are comparing this to 9/11. Um, no. In that over 3000 people were killed after a huge organizational plot that was years in the making. This one killed 0.1% of the people in that attack and was likely the work of a lone lunatic. It was horrible, absolutely...but let's have some perspective. This wasn't even close to the OKC Murrah bombing, and likely not nearly as internationally traumatic as the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
3)Naturally, we are hearing now about how 'this changes everything'. We're going to have more concerns about security at sporting events, at theaters, at anywhere where there are public gatherings. But then, every few months somebody opens up with mega-weaponry in schools or post offices or from clock towers and kills ten times the number killed yesterday, and we say we should do nothing about it? We refuse to do anything to change the possibility of those situations in the name of 'rights'. We could do something about mass killings, but we're scared to death to confront a minority of the population with the fact that they have wholly misinterpreted the intent of the Constitution. About guns, we could make relevant and real attempts to cut down on the violence. But about things that we likely can do little to prevent, we continue pretending we can stop them with worthless, feel-good 'precautions'. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
A few other thoughts about what happened...thoughts that are probably not popular, but hey, nobody reads this anyway.
1)The bombing was on 'tax day', April 15, and also recognized as 'patiots' day' in New England. I'm sure that it's been brought up by somebody but I've rarely heard it...does it not seem rather obvious that this was a symbolic day for somebody to show their government-hating bondafides?
2)Many people are comparing this to 9/11. Um, no. In that over 3000 people were killed after a huge organizational plot that was years in the making. This one killed 0.1% of the people in that attack and was likely the work of a lone lunatic. It was horrible, absolutely...but let's have some perspective. This wasn't even close to the OKC Murrah bombing, and likely not nearly as internationally traumatic as the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
3)Naturally, we are hearing now about how 'this changes everything'. We're going to have more concerns about security at sporting events, at theaters, at anywhere where there are public gatherings. But then, every few months somebody opens up with mega-weaponry in schools or post offices or from clock towers and kills ten times the number killed yesterday, and we say we should do nothing about it? We refuse to do anything to change the possibility of those situations in the name of 'rights'. We could do something about mass killings, but we're scared to death to confront a minority of the population with the fact that they have wholly misinterpreted the intent of the Constitution. About guns, we could make relevant and real attempts to cut down on the violence. But about things that we likely can do little to prevent, we continue pretending we can stop them with worthless, feel-good 'precautions'. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Enemies List
Back in the early 1970s Richard Nixon became obsessed with his enemies. Such obsession led to his eventual disgrace and downfall, and we now view him as a petty little man who destroyed himself.
So today on Twitter great sportswriter Joe Posnanski mentioned that the NRA publicly keeps an enemies list, and that both my Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs are on it. What??? I've never particularly thought of the Royals or Chiefs as anything more than poorly-run franchises whom I still continue to support for whatever reason. But I continued to look at this list and wonder, hey, these people are all anti-gun? Really? I'm sure that the gun nut advocates are not surprised to see the major networks and newspapers on there, but Silver Dollar City? Former NFL quarterback Doug Flutie? Hallmark cards? Yep, they are all there, and many, many more.
I'm a bit sad that somehow they have not put me on their enemies list yet, but then again I'm just a small-town preacher who isn't big enough to be on their radar. That's fine...I don't need to have people writing me and telling me I'm un-American because I have a different perspective on the second amendment than they do. Maybe someday I'll be fortunate enough to receive death threats.
But what I'm really interested in is the fascinating idea of having an enemies list and keeping it in a very public place. Who does this? Who sits around and compiles the names of hundreds of people and organizations who do not like you? If this was a person, we'd think him/her to be petty and paranoid all at the same time. What do we then think about the NRA?
The NRA exists because they stand against the growing trend of public opinion about guns. That's fine, we need those who will stand up and take a different road, even when that road leads to disaster. That's part of the public debate. Freedom means we need NAMBLA, it means we need euthanasia advocates, it means we need both the John Birch society and American communists. Just as we needed those who would advocate against Jim Crow laws when they were common, or just as we need people now who will prick our consciences about the homeless when we'd rather have them out of mind, we need somebody who will stand up and say that guns are not the sole reason there is so much violence. They need to keep speaking up even though the more they talk, the more many of us continue to run from their position.
But when you get to the point that you obsess about how many people don't like you, you've shown yourself to be nuts. NRA, welcome to Crazytown.
So today on Twitter great sportswriter Joe Posnanski mentioned that the NRA publicly keeps an enemies list, and that both my Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs are on it. What??? I've never particularly thought of the Royals or Chiefs as anything more than poorly-run franchises whom I still continue to support for whatever reason. But I continued to look at this list and wonder, hey, these people are all anti-gun? Really? I'm sure that the gun nut advocates are not surprised to see the major networks and newspapers on there, but Silver Dollar City? Former NFL quarterback Doug Flutie? Hallmark cards? Yep, they are all there, and many, many more.
I'm a bit sad that somehow they have not put me on their enemies list yet, but then again I'm just a small-town preacher who isn't big enough to be on their radar. That's fine...I don't need to have people writing me and telling me I'm un-American because I have a different perspective on the second amendment than they do. Maybe someday I'll be fortunate enough to receive death threats.
But what I'm really interested in is the fascinating idea of having an enemies list and keeping it in a very public place. Who does this? Who sits around and compiles the names of hundreds of people and organizations who do not like you? If this was a person, we'd think him/her to be petty and paranoid all at the same time. What do we then think about the NRA?
The NRA exists because they stand against the growing trend of public opinion about guns. That's fine, we need those who will stand up and take a different road, even when that road leads to disaster. That's part of the public debate. Freedom means we need NAMBLA, it means we need euthanasia advocates, it means we need both the John Birch society and American communists. Just as we needed those who would advocate against Jim Crow laws when they were common, or just as we need people now who will prick our consciences about the homeless when we'd rather have them out of mind, we need somebody who will stand up and say that guns are not the sole reason there is so much violence. They need to keep speaking up even though the more they talk, the more many of us continue to run from their position.
But when you get to the point that you obsess about how many people don't like you, you've shown yourself to be nuts. NRA, welcome to Crazytown.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
We believe what we want to believe.
What's more delusional?
-A Notre Dame linebacker who for three years lives with an exclusively online/phone relationship with a 'girlfriend', who keeps embellishing this lie even after it is proven she is a hoax?
-A world-famous champion cyclist who tells himself that his cheating was justified because everybody else did it?
-Gun advocates who are convinced that everybody is out to get them, that the Nazi government is trying to take their guns because legislation has been proposed to limit the amount of ammo that can be in a clip and to ban the most egregious of weapons?
-Families who live with the thought that it's better to keep enabling family members who keep doing horrible things, because they are worried that they will lose them if they finally say no to them, even if keeping on saying yes accelerates their downward spiral?
One thing I'm learning in life is that people love to hold onto their delusions. I wonder sometimes if everybody is mentally ill, or just that in our world of mega-information that there's too much information now to process, and that we need to return to a simple and less complex time.
-A Notre Dame linebacker who for three years lives with an exclusively online/phone relationship with a 'girlfriend', who keeps embellishing this lie even after it is proven she is a hoax?
-A world-famous champion cyclist who tells himself that his cheating was justified because everybody else did it?
-Gun advocates who are convinced that everybody is out to get them, that the Nazi government is trying to take their guns because legislation has been proposed to limit the amount of ammo that can be in a clip and to ban the most egregious of weapons?
-Families who live with the thought that it's better to keep enabling family members who keep doing horrible things, because they are worried that they will lose them if they finally say no to them, even if keeping on saying yes accelerates their downward spiral?
One thing I'm learning in life is that people love to hold onto their delusions. I wonder sometimes if everybody is mentally ill, or just that in our world of mega-information that there's too much information now to process, and that we need to return to a simple and less complex time.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Controlled by guns
I'm learning in this life that there are some topics that people cannot discuss rationally. Not everybody has the same taboo, of course...but there are some issues that just make people lose their ever lovin' minds. The tea party. Homosexuality. Particulars of religious faith.
But these days the issue that makes most people insane is the issue of gun control. One reason I've basically dumped facebook is that I just can't stand the insane 'sharing' of pictures, and in the last five days, since the tragic shootings of 26 people in Connecticut, almost everybody has a picture they think they need to share with me about gun control, be they a variation on the theme of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', 'we gotta keep our guns or the government will destroy us all' or 'let's all get rid of guns and then we can live in happy rainbow land'. It's not just this issue, of course...facebook is becoming an ideological cesspool on so many issues...but this is the one that has sent me over the edge. We need more words, better words about this and so many other topics.
In all honesty I don't have all the answers, but the extremes on both sides are just mind-boggling stupid. Yes, I said it...stupid. A word I try to make sure my kids don't say, like 'poopyhead' and 'butt'. Etymologically, I think 'stupid' and 'poopyhead' must be related, for most of the comments and/or facebook pictures I've seen and heard about this are either a)pulled straight from some special-interest website or b)the butt. Same thing, really.
30,000 dead from gun violence, 100,000 injured from gun violence a year in this country. Just this weekend two more cops in Topeka were killed by guns. Some think that all this will go away completely if we just eliminate guns. Truth is, people will still kill people if so inclined. Cain didn't need a handgun; Jack the Ripper did fine without a semi-automatic. There are so many guns out there now, so much ammunition readily available, that banning guns now would be like saying that no more Twinkies will be made...it's going to take years, decades even to whittle down the stockpile we have now. And even so, the Little Debbies of the world will soon jump in and fill a void and the black market on these guns will make prohibition look like a John 2 party.
But let's be rational, please? Are we honestly saying that we can't look for better gun laws? That we can't tighten some of the huge loopholes that people keep blasting their way through? The insanity of the discussion from the NRA-loving crowd is that any change of gun laws to make it more restrictive is a fundamental challenge to the second amendment. But a little bit of common sense makes us see that the right to 'bear arms' is not an absolute right...do we allow private citizens to own shoulder-launched air-to-ground missiles? How about the newest fighter jets? Heck, by the reasoning of the gun lobby we all ought to have nuclear missiles at our disposal...that will sure make the government back off our property, right?
There is no sane reason why anybody in this country outside of law enforcement needs the kind of weaponry that seems to always be at the center of most of this trouble. Thinking that an automatic weapon that can shoot a hundred rounds in ten seconds is as much like my dad's shotgun as a tank is like my bicycle. Why can't we sanely tell the difference?
We can't (and won't) ever have the courage to get rid of all guns. But we can surely eliminate the very worst of them, can't we? A sane, civilized place like here (I give America in 2012 way too much credit, but still...) can certainly figure out that the most dangerous of the offending weapons be made illegal.
Epilogue: here are some miscellaneous simple steps that have been going through my head. Not really related to what I've said before, but this gets them out of my head:
1)All guns should be registered and, if the technology is possible, their signature ought to be saved. Or has CSI been wrong about how much they can track weapons? If so, forget this...but surely, we should stop this idea that guns should be anonymous...we ought to be able to track whose weapon does what.
2)Related to this, everybody who owns a gun ought to have liability insurance on it. Low-danger weapons have low insurance...but if you think you have to own a handgun in a high-crime area or an automatic military-grade assault weapon, you'll pay for it, as they could track what weapons get fired at who. I have to pay liability insurance for every car I own, why not guns?
3)My favorite thought in all this: all guns are illegal, but ammunition cannot be manufactured or sold en masse. You have to make your own ammunition, just as they did back in the days of the constitution's writing. Then we'll really get back to 'original intent' when it comes to the constitution...I don't think James Madison had armor-piercing shells in mind when he wrote those blessed words.
But these days the issue that makes most people insane is the issue of gun control. One reason I've basically dumped facebook is that I just can't stand the insane 'sharing' of pictures, and in the last five days, since the tragic shootings of 26 people in Connecticut, almost everybody has a picture they think they need to share with me about gun control, be they a variation on the theme of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', 'we gotta keep our guns or the government will destroy us all' or 'let's all get rid of guns and then we can live in happy rainbow land'. It's not just this issue, of course...facebook is becoming an ideological cesspool on so many issues...but this is the one that has sent me over the edge. We need more words, better words about this and so many other topics.
In all honesty I don't have all the answers, but the extremes on both sides are just mind-boggling stupid. Yes, I said it...stupid. A word I try to make sure my kids don't say, like 'poopyhead' and 'butt'. Etymologically, I think 'stupid' and 'poopyhead' must be related, for most of the comments and/or facebook pictures I've seen and heard about this are either a)pulled straight from some special-interest website or b)the butt. Same thing, really.
30,000 dead from gun violence, 100,000 injured from gun violence a year in this country. Just this weekend two more cops in Topeka were killed by guns. Some think that all this will go away completely if we just eliminate guns. Truth is, people will still kill people if so inclined. Cain didn't need a handgun; Jack the Ripper did fine without a semi-automatic. There are so many guns out there now, so much ammunition readily available, that banning guns now would be like saying that no more Twinkies will be made...it's going to take years, decades even to whittle down the stockpile we have now. And even so, the Little Debbies of the world will soon jump in and fill a void and the black market on these guns will make prohibition look like a John 2 party.
But let's be rational, please? Are we honestly saying that we can't look for better gun laws? That we can't tighten some of the huge loopholes that people keep blasting their way through? The insanity of the discussion from the NRA-loving crowd is that any change of gun laws to make it more restrictive is a fundamental challenge to the second amendment. But a little bit of common sense makes us see that the right to 'bear arms' is not an absolute right...do we allow private citizens to own shoulder-launched air-to-ground missiles? How about the newest fighter jets? Heck, by the reasoning of the gun lobby we all ought to have nuclear missiles at our disposal...that will sure make the government back off our property, right?
There is no sane reason why anybody in this country outside of law enforcement needs the kind of weaponry that seems to always be at the center of most of this trouble. Thinking that an automatic weapon that can shoot a hundred rounds in ten seconds is as much like my dad's shotgun as a tank is like my bicycle. Why can't we sanely tell the difference?
We can't (and won't) ever have the courage to get rid of all guns. But we can surely eliminate the very worst of them, can't we? A sane, civilized place like here (I give America in 2012 way too much credit, but still...) can certainly figure out that the most dangerous of the offending weapons be made illegal.
Epilogue: here are some miscellaneous simple steps that have been going through my head. Not really related to what I've said before, but this gets them out of my head:
1)All guns should be registered and, if the technology is possible, their signature ought to be saved. Or has CSI been wrong about how much they can track weapons? If so, forget this...but surely, we should stop this idea that guns should be anonymous...we ought to be able to track whose weapon does what.
2)Related to this, everybody who owns a gun ought to have liability insurance on it. Low-danger weapons have low insurance...but if you think you have to own a handgun in a high-crime area or an automatic military-grade assault weapon, you'll pay for it, as they could track what weapons get fired at who. I have to pay liability insurance for every car I own, why not guns?
3)My favorite thought in all this: all guns are illegal, but ammunition cannot be manufactured or sold en masse. You have to make your own ammunition, just as they did back in the days of the constitution's writing. Then we'll really get back to 'original intent' when it comes to the constitution...I don't think James Madison had armor-piercing shells in mind when he wrote those blessed words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)