I've always believed in the right for people to legally bear firearms.
I've always subscribed to the concept in my title line that it's not guns that kill people - it's the people using the guns.
But I strongly believe that certain guns should not be allowed. Not assualt rifles. Not automatic or semi automatic, military style or police issue guns. (And while I understand that there are people who are life long collectors and truly avid enthusiasts - they fall in the minority. This rant is regarding the average person who has never owned a gun or had anything to do with guns, ever.)
And my thoughts have changed a little bit regarding ownership as well. Does the average person really have a need to carry one? It's probably doubtful.
The concept of "I'll have one, incase someone pulls one on me" - is nothing short of foolish.
Let's be honest, if one is to pull a gun on you - you are not going to have time to pull out your own weapon.
This isn't the wild west, and there are no "showdowns" at dawn.
(Oh, excuse me Mr. Criminal - you have a gun? Let me draw mine too - because after all, what's fair is fair....)
Isn't that almost the epitome of "crime begets crime"? (Hello point - I was wondering when you'd arrive!)Last I knew, two wrongs didn't equal a right. At least that's what I'd been taught.
Listen, I'm all for smaller government in regards to being in our taxes, our personal lives and our religious beliefs. But I am for a bigger, stronger and more strict government regarding violent crimes and those who commit them, and maybe if there were tougher penalties that fell upon those who commit violent crimes (with and without guns), the consequences may not be worth the crime. Of course, there are always going to be people who just don't care, but the majority of the crimes that are committed you don't hear about and trust me - many of these people do care, especially after spending time in prison. But it shouldn't be a multiple offense situation where a person gets punished after being reprimanded multiple times. (Sort of like a parenting "threatening" to get out of the chair and punish their child who's misbehaving....why say it over and over and over again....?)
There's something to be said about putting the safety of those around you first. And generally speaking there's really no need for the average person who isn't running drugs, or a street gang, or carrying thousands of dollars on them at a time (and even then it may not be a qualifier!) to have to carry a gun.
If you aren't a cop - what's the point?
While we may live in difficult times, and often violent locations - we are not in post apocolyptic times ala Mad Max.
So what's the solution? I'm not really sure, outside of our Big Brother government stepping up to the plate and telling the NRA to settle down. Like I started with, the right to bear arms - I'm all for. But there has to be ying with the yang. While it seems that the laws to obtain guns legally is relatively strict, assault weapons should be banned in my humble opinion - and most importanly, tougher punishment for those who obtain and use these guns illegally.
I look at it like the death penalty. If we punish more people by death - will it stop murder? No, of course not. But it may drastically reduce the amount of crimes that are committed, because generally speaking most people don't want to die. I'm not suggesting the death penalty for guns - but if a person gets caught with an illegal weapon and they have to spend serious time in prison for it on the first offense - they may take the illegal ownership concept and bit more seriously and think twice.
We will never eradicate violent crimes.
But we do need to take stronger steps towards reducing them.
1 comment:
Thorny issue, as you so eloquently write it.
The thing is, the Second Amendment wasn't put in place so that hunters would be able to kill deer, or so that target shooters would be able to destroy skeet. It was put in place specifically so that folks would have something at hand with which to fight government force. Unless common folk had weapons, any talk of revolution was going to be just that - talk. Government could quash uprisings at whim if they held the only weapons of any might.
Of course, those who wrote The Bill Of Rights didn't envision the weaponry available in this day and age. So the question becomes would they have written limitations into the amendment had they known? I doubt it, but who knows? We can't ask them!
Of course, it would be so much easier if everyone were sane!
Post a Comment