Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Saturday, December 15, 2012

What's the Answer?

We know that bans don't work (Prohibition, anyone?).

And there's the Second Amendment (although I'm not sure why we need a well-armed militia now that the British have retreated and we have a standing army).

I shake my head when folks seem to think that arming all the "good people" will make the "bad people" think twice before shooting. Members of the Mafia, drug cartels, and street gangs are heavily armed and yet this fact doesn't seem to stop armed assaults on them. Drug addicts aren't particularly logical when committing crimes to acquire their next fix. Plus, to be effective the "good people" would have to wear their holstered guns 24/7. And they would need to be so well trained that they wouldn't experience those initial stunned seconds when fired upon at the coffee shop, in the mall, or at the movies. Not to mention being well practiced with their weapon (I've seen hunting accident reports -- people can be idiots). Would armed amateurs really save lives, or increase the carnage with their crossfire?

I have family who hunt, I played with cap guns when young, I am not anti gun. I don't see the need for individuals outside of the military or law enforcement to possess automatic or semi-automatic weapons. But outlawing them or their ammo clips won't eliminate their existence.

What we can work on is our cultural attitude toward weaponry.

We'll never completely prevent tragedies such as those that rocked our world this past week. But shouldn't we strive to make them extremely rare occurrences?