Skip to main content

I don't alway process as quickly as everyone else. I'm prone to over thinking, over feeling, compulsively trying to understand that which comes easily, and that which does not. I try not to dismiss other opinions, especially those that are in direct conflict of my own because I know until we see (as best we can) from the other point of view, we can do nothing to change it. But, I am at a loss. I can't see the other side of the gun issue no matter how open I insist I be, or willing to listen. This time, I have grown increasingly disheartened, and even angry. I've gotten argumentative in moments, and dismissive in others.

When someone compares guns to pencils or forks as tools that carry out the intentions of a person, I sarcastically and callously respond by saying, "Yes, yes. Totally same. I remember when that man misspelled an entire classroom of children to death, and that time 12 women were force fed to death in under a minute by a fork."

These things are not the same. And to imply they are further proves the demented thinking that fights so diligently for looser gun regulations, and greater accessibilities to the very tools whose single purpose is to kill. When I fully grasped it is my friends, my family and my neighbors who share this mentality, it changed how I see them. It encourages thoughts I'd rather not think. It makes me question their own mental health. It makes me wonder what value their children are to them. It makes me want to ask, "If you had to choose between your gun and your child, which would you choose?"

They don't have to answer. We've seen the answer. How many times have we read of a child accessing their parents pistol, only to accidentally maim and kill themselves? Whether people want to admit it or not, that is an answer. Knowing the destruction a gun can bring, and mixing it with the natural curiosity and adventure of a child, they've given the answer. When a gun remains in a person's possession long after their sweet child has been buried in the ground, they have answered.

(more after the fold)

Responding to a mass murder by a weapon that can neither be described as a tool for hunting, or a tool of protection by arming more people with guns magnifies how very unstable the thinking is that we have embraced in America.

Fires are put out before the root cause is examined. We don't let fires burn uncontrollably, threatening everything in its path from property to life. We act purposefully, extinguishing the fire, lessening its probability of destruction. Only when the threat is over do we seek out the reasons. And when we find the reasons, we don't just walk away and say, "Oh well. We can't prevent them. Let's turn a blind eye." No, we take steps to prevent future fires. Why do we not approach guns in the same way? Why aren't we lessening their probability of destruction? Why are we even debating about semi-automatic weapons? I've heard the best preventative measure in gun related deaths is making people pay harsh penalties for their crimes. Penalties come after the crime. If you want to save lives, you prevent the crime.

Go ahead and use the copout that people determined to kill will find a way to kill. Do we really want to be an accomplice in ensuring they can do it as easily as possible? Because so far, that's what we've done. We have been accomplices. By not making every attempt possible to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we are an accomplice. I don't want to be an accomplice. I won't be anymore.

Think of someone you know who has been killed by a gun. I'm thinking of the father of a high school acquaintance who was shot and killed by him. I'm thinking of a grandfather in Lubbock, Texas who accidentally shot and killed his grade-school aged granddaughter. I'm thinking of the sweet, angelic faces of the children who drew their last breath in a classroom before they really had a chance to live. And I can't help but wonder if they could, would they say to those who are hell bent on looser gun laws, and weapons that can kill 28 people in a matter of minutes, "You worked hard to protect the guns that were used to kill me. Now, will you fight for me?"

Every legislature who has championed gun laws that serve to protect an object more than to protect a life should be asked this same question. Everyday. They should be forced to look at the face of victims, and asked, "Will you fight for me now that I am gone?"

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  One good observation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leavingthezoo

    You're correct that tough gun laws don't protect all crime.

    But let's look at what kinds of shootings are and aren't affected by gun laws.

    1. Obviously, drug gangs and the like are going to have guns, laws or none.  However, it makes it a bit more expensive for low level hoods to pack heat (and reduces the potency of what they do carry) by reducing the size of the secondary gun market.

    2. Shootings resulting from domestic disturbances are reduced because it is much less likely for such people to be armed; some of them simply won't pass a background check and many others won't buy guns if they can't do it on impulse, even if they can get one legally.

    3. Shootings during robberies are reduced.  (And a lot of armed robbers will be more careful about shooting; it's mostly the most casual criminals who are deterred -- professional gangs aren't, but they are usually a bit more deliberate.)

    4. The inclination towards psychotic mass shootings is strongly reduced.  Most of these people are stochastic terrorists and as such don't have access to the illegal arms market.  In fact, it pretty much dries up stochastic terrorism.  That's why the right wing is so opposed to gun control.

    5. Organized terrorism is completely unaffected (I don't think Aryan Nation or Al Queda gives a shit about gun laws and their international arms trafficking contacts will keep them in assault rifles if that's what they want.)  But, even with 9/11 factored in, your odds of being murdered by a terrorist are lower than any of the other causes.

    Gun control is not the panacea or the whole solution, and our lax gun laws are as much as an effect as a cause.  I don't think we're ever going to be like Europe, Americans are too much into guns for that to happen.  But there is some set of gun laws that can substantially curtail the availability of guns to criminals and crazies while letting the country's target shooters and hunters and collectors continue to do their respective hobbies.

    •  I agree with all that you've said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myboo

      And though my commentary lends heavily to sounding as if I would like to ban guns, that is not my argument.

      There are good, sound arguments for guns. Comparing them to forks, or pencils, and trying to validate semi-automatic weapons with the 2nd amendment aren't them. Those arguments, to me, tend to provide greater proof of necessity for stronger gun laws, and the people making those arguments should be the first to undergo an extensive and intensive mental health evaluation.

      I also think "accidental shootings" should be dropped from a vernacular, and all should be treated as either justifiable or nonjustifiable. Accident or not, you can't undo death, and had proper precautions been in place, there would have been no accident.

  •  I wish guns were like pencils- (3+ / 0-)

    it would be nice if you could erase the mark they leave.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site