Is the Washington Naval Yard shooting still "really big news" or have you already dismissed it?
I'm tired of hearing the line "They're coming to take our guns away" every time a another gun tragedy occurs. The Constitution has been in effect for 224 years and that hasn't happened yet, has it?
Maybe gun owners should be more concerned with reality than with fantasy. The reality is that guns are weapons, not tools, which are meant do kill and they do their job very well.
No one ever designed a car, a hammer or a kitchen knife and said to themselves, "If I do this it will be more dangerous, if I do this it will make it more accurate, if I do this it will kill better".
However, perhaps every gun maker tries to realize these points: guns should be more powerful, more accurate and more dangerous. And all too often they try to make their guns more appealing, easier to use and easier to conceal.
This is the nature of tools: we try to make tools safer and we add warnings glued on their handles and printed on their packaging; we have guarantees and regulations because, over the years, people have found imaginative ways to use their tools and in these ways have managed to kill and injure themselves.
So, whenever I hear a comparison, such as the use of guns verses the cars of drunk drivers my heart sinks. What a stretch. Think a little: who gets into their car, goes out for a night on the town thinking what carnage their car can do, if they decide to use it; who plans a drunk driving accident?
Who says "I'm in a bad mood and I'm going to get drunk and wreck my car and maybe kill a bunch of people"?
Who says "I'm going to drive down to the elementary school and run over as many children as I can?"
A certain percent, luckily a small percent, of gun owners actually do this. We know this because we can read it in the news all too often. "I hate my life" or "I hate my wife" or "I hate my job" and they lash out in the deadliest way they can.
Another point of the false analogy of gun incidents and drunk driving accidents is this: a person convicted of drunk driving does lose the privilege of driving, there are many laws on the books concerning drunk driving and many penalties.
The authorities can put them in prison and can take their licenses away and insurance companies can deny them insurance or, if their driving rights are reinstated, can charge them obscene rates.
This cannot and will never prevent drunk driving but it can curtail it and creates a known set of rules and regulations that can be held against the driver. We know the penalties.
Pure human stupidity cannot be controlled. If you are a gun owner as well as a driver this should give you pause: that stupid idiot who just cut you off or who is texting and driving or who is doing whatever it is to make you angry enough to want to kill him, he may also be a gun owner. Scary thought, isn't it?
So, gun owners, what is it to be? 30,000 various gun deaths a year or an effort to reduce that, for example, the way we've reduced vehicular deaths over the past 50 years.
What will it be? A little responsibility to go along with your "Constitutional right"?
How about some common sense rules and regulations to make all of us safer; owners, their families and those of us who absorb the "secondary" bullets?
How about background checks. Prove you are who you say you are and that you're of a sound mind. Prove you're not a felon. Sort of like some people want to do with the right to vote (I don't hear the NRA complaining about violating those rights by the recent making of new rules and regulations in many states).
How about limits on types of weapons. Does the hunter need a semi-automatic to hunt rabbits and ducks? (Elmer Fudd never did, he made do with a shotgun). Let's have some common sense gun rules.
How about limited magazines? Who need 20, 40 or 100 bullets in a gun outside of a soldier on active duty? (However, to tell the truth, Elmer Fudd never needed to reload unless it enhanced the comedic content of the scene.)
How about gun licensing, training and relicensing and maintaining training. Do you want a blind Alzheimer's sufferer wandering around with a gun? (Not unlike Elmer.)
How about mental and physical testing for all gun owners? Makes sense, doesn't it?
How about liability insurance for all gun owners, you know, just in case. You could even opt for comprehensive just in case you or a family member is involved in a shooting accident (I'll bet Elmer Fudd has some, considering all the times he's shot himself in the face).
Yes, yes, I know. It's in the Constitution. But, as I constantly point out, you're not a member of a "well regulated militia", are you?
I know, I know, that part doesn't count. (And why is that? Because it might be inconvenient?)
And hasn't the Constitution been reinterpreted many times over the past 200 plus years? Not to mention amended 27 times and counting (including the precious 2nd). Are all of those amendments sacred to you? How many can you name without looking it up?
I don't care if you own a gun or two. I only care that you are a responsible owner who wants to accept and share that responsibility.
You have no right to shoot me for scaring you a little bit or even a lot.
You have no right to shoot me in the heat of an argument.
You have no right to shoot me because I angered or insulted you.
You have no right to shoot me because "it was an accident".
And on and on.
A gun does not make you safer, statistics prove it puts you in greater danger, including accidents and suicides.
For the same reason a gun does not make your family safer. No child in a gun free house ever shot themselves, their siblings or their parents by accident. (They'd need a gun to do that.)
Gun owners, grow up. Guns are not toys to collect and play with.
They are not magic shields against evil and fear.
They are not insurance that guarantees your safety.
Guns are not cute, beautiful or fun. If you think like this you are a danger to yourself, your loved ones and all those around you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Because the text and the title seem to have little in common.
