Gun violence is reported in exponential proportion with the number of victims. This made the “main stream” evening news in the way the one would expect, though not in the ridiculous over reaction that we have seen in other similar events. I don’t see a foul in reporting.
There are nuts of all stripes.
I understand what you are saying, but I want to say that these people who are clinging to their traditional rights are not as much of a threat as may be portrayed by the opposition.
No matter which side of the debate you find yourself on, I think we are all the same, we all want the same things. We just disagree on matters of implementation.
P.S. Be as crass* as you like. But beware, there be dragons here. 
* inside joke.
Frankly, I think it’s gotten to the point where those arguing pro-guncontrol and those who are in favor of deregulation and proliferation are arguing orthogonally. As I see it, the most important question is: what’s the best way to reduce the number of people being killed with purpose-built weaponry (I’ll call it guns for the sake of brevity, but the idea isn’t limited to firearms)?
Both sides seem to be missing the point here in their leading arguments. The pro-deregulation side seems to think that if everyone is armed, then nobody can be taken advantage of, which is simply untrue. They feel that gun violence can be solved with more guns, because if everyone is armed, then “bad guys” will know they’ll be shot if there’s any funny business. That doesn’t really reduce the violence. It just redirects it, and enables further violence when any angry person can go buy a gun and five minutes later shoot the person they’re angry at.
The pro-gun control side is also often wrong, in that they draw caricatures of the pro-deregulation side as violent psychopaths and bullies. The thing is, they’re only partly wrong there. There is a minority of psychopaths and bullies. Not that many, but they’re there. And that, coupled with the fact that these bullies also are people who carry around loaded weapons multiplies the impact of their threats and rhetoric. It doesn’t matter if the pro-deregulation people are by and large civil, sweet, lovely humans who’d never shoot someone out of anger or hatred. They’ve decided to broadcast their status as willing to kill. And that makes their argument more intimidating and the debate less respectful whether or not they have valid arguments.
All of this open-carry protesting doesn’t make anyone feel safer. Quite the opposite, the moderates, and the anti-gun people feel that it’s a direct threat to them. “You can’t change how guns are regulated in a way I don’t like, because I’ll shoot you if you try.” It’s a big game of chicken.
I’m not in favor of completely disarming the public. That’s absurd. But I do think it’s a good idea to limit very strictly weaponry designed to maim and kill large numbers of people quickly. And as long as we have such permissive firearms laws, we absolutely need to make firearms safety a mandatory part of the educational system. D.A.R.E. is highly ineffective, and is essentially a boondoggle for police departments. What we need are standard courses in firearms safety in school, that aren’t optional. People should know what the difference is between an open and closed bolt firearm is, how to safe it, and to know that there’s no such thing as a safe firearm. They should be taught trigger discipline, and to never even point a safed weapon at anything they aren’t willing to destroy. The basics.
Final word: Firearms violence is close to unnecessary in the first world. The US is by far the most violent country in the first world, and there’s a reason for it. The common denominator is the proliferation and availability of firearms. Reducing the means for a civilian population to use purpose-built weaponry dramatically reduces the likelihood of people getting killed with such weaponry. Adding more weaponry into the mix at this point in American history wouldn’t serve as much of a deterrent to gun violence, but would encourage more retaliation and further violence.
A gun is a purpose built tool. Some guns are purpose built for fighting wars and maiming and killing many people with a single magazine. These are unnecessary tools for the average citizen to possess. Self defense is a right, but arming oneself for war shouldn’t be necessary in civil society. That’s what the military is for.
1 Like
that’s from “indexed” which is a lovely website.
1 Like
Always enjoy “indexed”
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 3 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
