------------------------------------------
I have been watching the posts here on the gun debate for the last couple of days, and figured I'd toss my thoughts out into the fray.
The gun control vs right to bear arms debate is, no doubt, a passionate argument, and I'll honestly agree that both sides have extremely valid points, and both sides are guilty of taking rather ridiculous stances to further their claims. And until both sides are willing to sit down and rationally discuss, with as little emotion as possible, the realistic approaches that can be taken, no solution presents itself.
For example, I hate hearing those who say "I need my AK-47 for hunting." C'mon, if you need a semi automatic assault rifle to take on Bambi, in my opinion you really aren't much of a hunter.
On the flip side, I shake my head at those who suggest an across the board confiscation of firearms across America. Do those who suggest this honestly believe that the criminal element that exists today is going to simply line up and get rid of their weapons because "the law" said to? C'mon folks, really, we're all smarter than that. In a perfect world, maybe some Sim City game with cheat mode on, that might work. But I think we can all agree that "the bad guys" are not going to play by the rules.
Guns exist in America- that genie is out of the bottle and there is no "magic bullet" (sorry) that will solve this issue, and as I indicated above, both sides are guilty of bending the facts to fit their argument. To make matters worse, in the attempt to validate claims, scenarios are presented which most people simply do not think will ever happen, which then seems to make the argument invalid and the presenter of such scenarios a nut. I am thinking specifically of those who say we must remain armed to keep the gov't in check-many out there say even if the government gets out of hand, the common citizenry will never rise up against the government - it really would amount so a second civil war. It is a frightening scenario that many say will never happen, thus that argument is invalid.
However, I could site historical examples of what happens when only those in power are armed (Nazi Germany is one example), and modern day tragedies that are happening even as we speak because the general population was disarmed, but what good will that do to convince those who already have decided "it can't happen here"? So those of us who argue that government fears an armed citizenry are immediately branded "conspiracy theorists gone bad" or "paranoid paramilitary survivalists." Reason and logic lose their voice when they fall on deaf ears, and all the facts in the world won't sway someone who doesn't want to see them.
I watched Bowling for Columbine for the 1 st time yesterday because of one my co workers swore up and down it was the most amazing documentary he had ever seen. I'm only going to address one (of many) things that I noticed.
At one point, Moore indicated that gun sales were at an all time high, while crime was on the decline. I believe he was attempting to show that people didn't need to buy guns because crime was going down. But not once did he suggest that crime was on the decline BECAUSE everyone was arming themselves, because that wouldn't put the proper spin on his argument. It wasn't a documentary, because it wasn't unbiased, and it is a sterling example of people not wanting to rationally examine facts and figures without putting their own personal agenda on the table.
But this isn't meant to be a review of BFC. We (meaning Americans) are faced with a unique problem, in part because we are a unique country. No other form of government exists with the same liberties and freedoms. There are other democracies, but not with the same level of "unregulated" freedoms. (I say that with tongue in cheek.) I watch with dismay at how easily people surrender these rights, slowly allowing themselves to become nothing more than sheep in a flock, to be led mindlessly wherever the shepherds dictate, and shamelessly abandoning any form of personal responsibility for one's self or family.
The hypocrisy of those who want to take away your and my right to keep one's self and loved ones safe is truly staggering, but it appeals to those who think they are either immune to the dangers of today's times, or have means to purchase the services of others to protect them. Given all that has happened, and the fact that we are at war with those who have no reservation about killing innocent civilians, how can you, in good conscience, walk around unconcerned and unprepared for any potentiality? I have always said "Preparation will beat regret for the lack of it every time."
July 18, 1984: 21 killed at a McDonald's in San Ysidro (San Diego County).
Aug. 20, 1986: 14 killed in a post office in Edmund, Okla.
Oct. 16, 1991: 23 people killed at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas.
April 20, 1999: 13 people killed at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.
We will never make it so that those who wish harm upon others cannot do so.
But we can, and should, allow those who may be in harm's way to defend themselves (and others). I wish the world were such that it isn't needed. I wish we all got along, respected and appreciated our individualities and offerings to the world. I wish we could be united and stand together and work alongside one another without fear, prejudice and loathing.
But that is as unrealistic a dream as a world without guns.
Freedom is not cheap. It is bought and paid for in blood and tears, and keeping those freedoms is a never ending task, and it requires a personal investment and personal responsibility, which are both eroding at an alarming rate."You're fighting fire with fire." you may argue. Yes, I am. That's how wildfires are put out. It may not be a perfect solution, but it works. Putting out an oil fire with explosives sounds insane, but it works. Arming a society to protect itself from itself may not be so crazy after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment