For those who haven't seen the news, the US Supreme Court just struck down a handgun ban in Washington, DC. The reason cited? The ban was incompatible with the 2nd Amendment. So then that's that, we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It's time. Take away all the guns, allow slingshots instead. (While I'm non-violent, I get it that some folks don't respond to a kind word in all situations.) Slingshots won't kill you, but if a police officer is confronting a mugger, a few zots from a slingshot loaded with steel balls would probably be enough to stop the criminal. And isn't that the idea, to stop killing people? 'Cause, y'know, you can't apologize to a corpse if you feel bad about killing them. Dead is Dead.
The Gift
-
[Christmas, 1965 or thereabout]
The boy was very young; perhaps 7 or 8 years old. He loved everything about
Christmas - the lights, the music, Santa ...
8 months ago
10 Comments:
Let's say for grins and giggles that we DO find a way to gather up all the guns! Even the ones that the bad guys tried to hide from us! We found them, too! And melted them! And all the bullets too!
Cool. Now there are NO GUNS anywhere in our country. (As an aside - do we give the military a pass, or do we fire the military, and melt their guns, too and then hire mercenaries from other countries that still allow guns? I'm not trying to be snide - I'm genuinely curious how we will prevent some country that really doesn't like us from coming in and just taking over. Because they will still have guns...)
But, let's get back on track here. Now the worst, most damaging weapon you can have is a slingshot, right?
Except... that the very next week, some guy posts a YouTube video. It shows very clearly, in, oh say a half a dozen easy-to-follow steps how to not only "hack" the slingshot to make it fire further, faster and harder than your friendly neighborhood Constable's slingshot, BUT the guy also shows you how to take your ammo and make it slice, dice, and thrice as deadly.
NOW WHAT DO WE DO?
Ban all the slingshots! We'll gather them up, and NO MORE SLINGSHOTS because they have become too deadly! Let's have a bonfire, kids!
Now, with all the slingshots gone, if you want to bear arms, you'll have to use a rubber band.
And that works great until some guy posts a YouTube...
See a pattern forming here?
The reason that humans want to have and/or carry a weapon are very basic and rooted deeply in our past. We want(ed) to be able to protect ourselves, our family, our food, our homes, our animals.
Nowadays, most of us DON'T "need" guns, but we still feel like we want to "protect" ourselves.
So, is the reality of "banning guns" actually going to be more difficult than it appears on the surface?
With all my heart, I wish we could somehow prevent people from mis-using guns and bombs and knives and nunchuks and other weapons. But I truly believe that if we were to find a way to gather up all of the things that could hurt people (and/or animals) in the world... someone, somewhere would either "hack" or invent a new weapon in less than month.
And so the change - the fundamental change that must occur in order to melt the guns, and burn up the slingshots and break the rubber bands - must occur within Man first.
And you can believe me when I say that I pray for that very thing every day.
Thim,
First, thanks for reading and, as always, being such a thoughtful commenter.
Second, the idea behind the gun is that there is no other hand-held weapon that can do as much damage. No matter how you hacked a slingshot, as long as there was no gunpowder, it wouldn't kill anyone. While I agree that humans could benefit from a change of heart when it comes to killing other humans, we could and should start with taking an incredibly efficient killing tool out of their hands. We'll start there, and then deal with the other stuff over time. But getting rid of the guns is easy, you just have to do it. Knives would still be lethal, yet legal, because it's not easy to kill someone with a knife. And so I get the fact that weapons are deep in our history, but let's take the first step.
Stu:
The reason we have the Second Amendment is to keep the government at bay. Your mileage may vary on that statement, but that's what I believe and what a number of other folks who have studied The Constitution believe.
Guns, of any sort, are the most effective hand-held weapons available. You state that, and I agree.
The reason we should never be allowed any less firepower than the government is so that, should the need arise, the people can fight the government on an equal footing. Take away the right to have those arms and you take away the ultimate defense against tyranny. That's what the founders of this country believed, and I agree 100%.
Now, we can certainly argue intelligently about what would constitute the need to fight the government in such a radical fashion. When such weapons should come into play is certainly an important thing to wonder about. However, I believe they should always be available for such use, and I have never been given a counter-argument that convinces me otherwise.
I would love to live in a world where they were not the best defense, but I don't. Therefore, I will fight to keep my rights.
FWIW: I do not own a gun. I have never even fired a gun. But I damn well want free access to one should I feel my rights being threatened in such a way that demands a brutal response.
Sully,
I hear ya on the governmental oversight concept. I am a big fan of the writings about the Nixon administration. As President, when the protests against the war in Vietnam were at his very doorstep, he debated with senior staff about whether he should call out the US Army to fight the protesters. He also debated the same tactic when he was facing impeachment. So yeah, I hear you loud and clear.
However, there are *way* too many people in the United States who would never let things go that far. If any branch of the government ever attempted a serious breach of the Constitution, they would be impeached - Nixon did a few uncool things (y'know, like bombing Cambodia and tampering with elections) and were it not for his resignation, he would have been forcibly removed from office. Even while he was *still* President, during the final weeks, the Joint Chiefs were in lockstep about ignoring any crazy orders that might come their way (like "Hey, let's use nuclear weapons against North Vietnam"). So I can't sanely believe that there would ever be a time in the United States when a sitting President (or Speaker Of The House or whomever) would ever be able to command US Troops to do battle against US citizens.
That is why I believe that guns are something we can do without. I'm happy to have the military be the ones with the guns, because the soldiers are American citizens, and I trust that their instinct would keep them focused on protecting ourselves from invasion.
And yes, I remember the Civil War. Except the Southern states were *wrong* - no question about that - trafficking in humans is so *clearly* wrong. And if US citizens, for whatever reason, decided to organize and commit that sort of crime against our basic human freedoms, well, let the soldiers do what they have to do.
Stu:
You know I love you, so I value your opinion. That said, I think we're going to just have to agree to be in friendly disagreement on this one.
Most military bodies are comprised of citizens of their nations who were no doubt thought of, by their fellow citizens, to be above gunning down the citizenry. You don't have to go too far to find numerous examples of that thinking turning out to have been wrong. Are our soldiers a higher breed? Perhaps. I'd like to think so. But all it takes is misinformation to get a fellow thinking that what he is doing is morally right when in fact it is evil. He'll still believe he's an upstanding fellow, but if he actually isn't, and he's got a gun and I don't...
Stu, we're both peaceful folks at heart. Maybe I'm just a bit more paranoid than you are. If so, more's the pity for me :-)
Stu:
You know that I adore you, but I have to disagree with you. Taking that "first step" will never be as easy - or as simple as you seem to think.
With all due respect, there are MANY other handheld weapons that can kill. Believe it or not, a slingshot *can* be a deadly weapon. The fact that you have never seen a slingshot used to bring down an animal doesn't mean it can't/won't happen. Just Google "slingshot as weapon" and look at the first 5 hits after the sponsored links. I personally know people who routinely hunt with slingshots.
Knives, slingshots, and bows & arrows all can be deadly in the right hands.
You said that it's "easy" and we'll "just do it" - just take away EVERYONE'S guns. Do you really believe that your local crack dealer will happily turn in his weapons because he's "supposed to"? If he were such a law-abiding citizen in the first place, he wouldn't be dealing crack, would he? Stu, I have some bad news for you - out here in the Real World, there are Bad People. Bad People Who Own Guns. And those Bad People ARE NOT GOING TO VOLUNTARILY GIVE YOU THEIR GUNS. And there are more of them than you are counting on.
But, OK - it's your Blog, so out of respect, I'll try to play along here. My next question is: Who will we turn all these guns in to? The military? As much as I respect the men and women of our military for their deep commitment to our freedom and safety, if you think I'm going to trust a governmental agency to "do the right thing" with (literal) mountains of handguns, you're just crazy, my friend. Think about it for just a moment - our Government has a documented history of hiring contractors and subcontractors to take care of such problems. Let's say they hire one contractor for each of the 50 states. Each contractor decides to keep just one gun for himself - and one for his Mama, so she can be safe. Then he takes one for his brother - after all, who's going to know? There are 50 mountains of guns! They can't melt them fast enough! (Imagine, if you can, the mountain just for Texas!) Then, human nature being what it is, that contractor decides to store a "few" guns - after all, they'll be "collectors items" or "museum pieces" now, right? And, hey - his youngest kids needs braces, the oldest is about to go off to college, and the wife wants a new car. How much could it hurt to let that guy who showed up with the briefcase full of cash spend an hour alone with the mountain of guns and an empty truck?
You see, Stu, you are counting on EVERYONE to be honest. You are counting on EVERYONE to do "the right thing". That's the ONLY WAY your scenario will work.
But we are *humans*. We have flaws, weaknesses, and foibles.
Allowing only the soldiers to have the guns sounds like a great idea, except you have to remember that SOLDIERS ARE ALSO HUMAN. Can you TRULY trust that each and every soldier in our military is going to always "do the right thing"? And what about our Police departments? How can they protect us from each other if they have no weapons to stop the bad guys?
Finally, you seem to think that the elimination of all handguns would somehow stop all human-on-human violence. But it won't. We'll just find new ways to kill each other. Maybe it wont' be a hacked slingshot - maybe it will be a souped-up Taser. Or an overpowered stun gun. Because we have to face the facts - we've been hacking our weapons and tools since the first caveman rolled that wheel out of the cave.
Your "solution" of "gather the guns first, and worry about everything else later" is distressingly naive, and does not address the core problem - that fundamental change that *must* occur within Man as a species first.
As much as we would all like to believe that another Hitler could never arise... As much as we would like to believe that "citizen journalists" would alert the world to wrongs being committed...
We can't count on it. Not yet, anyway.
But as I said before, I pray for it, every day.
Ok, ok, ok - I give! Thim and Suldog have reasoned me into submission - I have no evidence to support the concept that less guns equal less murders (in fact, if you look at the homicide rates vs. gun rates of most countries, there's no discernible correlation) - This was just me being naive - I am definitely an idealist, despite my desire to be a misanthrope.
Oh Stu - your idealism is one of the things we love *best* about you!
Never stop being who you are; it is your optimism, your faith, your hope that make you... you.
Your friend,
Thim :)
Stu,this one was a tough one. I have to agree with Thim and Stu, but I so wish I could agree with you. :) I wish that the better nature of mankind, the Star Trek nature of mankind, was right here, right now.
Maybe if there are enough like you (perhaps you've started something with those wonderful kids of yours), then the world will change.
I like to think that those of us who believe in a better world can slowly make it happen, and then teach our kids to continue on after us, and so on.
I guess I feel about guns the same way I feel about the right to choose for pregnancy. I would not want the government to take either right away, but I would, personally, not own a gun nor have an abortion.
As always, you do challenge the mind and heart. :)
I agree with Stu ... "melt the guns" (i.e., no private ownership) and then ENFORCE the law.
But I understand the arguments. Some feel that the right to bear arms is needed to protect us from a government that is broken. However, a government that is broken enough to "fire" upon its own citizenry will have more than guns and bullets at their disposal. So, we the people would need bombers, missles, canons, and all sorts of weapons too insane to even mention (including tactical atomic weapons ... a govt crazy enough to fire upon its citizens would not pull its punches). So, carring a .38 (or glock or even a militaty grade automatic weapon) would really not do much to stop a run-away govt.
But even if I concede that citizens with guns would "deter" a prez crazy enough to order a nuke against citizens, we the people MUST do something to stop the slaughter caused by citizens carrying guns.
Of concern to me are kids killing kids with guns. I live near Columbine, CO and the memory of that tragedy is haunting. And VA Tech, and ... (unfortunately, it's a long list). If we allow citizens to carry guns, how do we stop kids killing kids, how do we stop drive-bys, etc?
Should we enact laws that call for a mandatory life sentence (with no parole and no escape due to technicalities, etc) for ANY crime carried our with a gun? That's been tried to one degree or another. Does not appear to stop the violence. Should we enact laws that state that people with mental problems cannot buy guns. That too has been tried and the parents of VA Tech studends are still grieving.
Congress is about to modify the law against people carrying loaded weapons in National Parks. Those for the bil say it will allow people to protect themselves from wildlife. All I can envision are innocent people being shot because someone thought they were a bear.
Where will it end? And how do we end it?
Hope I have not offended anyone by my post.
--- Allen (Stu's cousin)
Post a Comment