After the children and adults were murdered in Connecticut, I wrote a brief post (12/14) about banning automatic weapons. Of course, I received a comment from a gun enthusiast, who accused me of being intolerant, narrow-minded, and hypocritical, pointing out that my bio states I abhor these characteristics. Well, I suppose this commenter might be correct to a certain degree and maybe I should consider altering my personal information. But first, let me elucidate…
Guns (firearms) were created by men to aid in hunting and protection. Then they became the means by which to commit crimes, to conquer territories, to slaughter the buffalo, and to wage war. For the past forty years, firearms have become more prevalent and used to intentionally kill family members, neighbors, strangers, bystanders, movie goers, campers, and school children. To me, it is irrelevant that many of these killers are mentally ill and end up committing suicide. Without the availability of firearms, fewer murders would occur; without automatic and semi-automatic weapons fewer massacres would result.
Guns are not good or bad, not alive or dead, not innocent or quilty. They are inanimate objects, but they were invented for killing. You cannot get around that fact! It does not matter that most gun owners are responsible people, enjoy hunting and/or target practice, and have no intention of causing harm to or the death of another human being, because the owning of a firearm automatically infers that the person is prepared to defend himself or herself and their loved ones. That they would be willing and able to take another life in self-defense. Why else have a gun or guns if you do not hunt for food or enjoy shooting competitions? Frankly, part of me understands this protective attitude: I would rip apart anyone I saw hurting my grandchildren or any other child. However, I have no intention of buying a gun for that hypothetical, paranoid purpose. (gun-ownership)
Besides responsible gun owners, military personnel, and law enforcement officers, the other people who carry and/or use weapons are criminals and the demented. They may be the minority of the population, but they are the deadliest. The ready availability of firearms, due to inadequate background checks, is in part to blame. The majority of the blame is in the manufacturing and selling of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and firearms with more than 10 rounds. (The day after those twenty precious children were killed, I was completely repulsed and incensed by the grin on the face of a very busy gun store owner, who was being interviewed on the news.) Just because we have the ingenuity and capability to make all varieties of weapons, bombs, armaments, and powerful ammunition does not mean we need to or should.
In my previous post, I suggested limiting households to one pistol or revolver and one hunting rifle, as well as to ban automatic weapons and multi-capacity ammo clips. What is wrong with or irrational about that? After all, we only have two hands. If you hunt to eat, you would not want the meat all shot up, would you? If you hunt for taxidermied trophies or floor coverings, you do not want multiple holes in them, do you? If you like the sport of shooting at targets, you can rent firearms at the shooting range; you do not need to buy and carry multiple weapons, when you cannot practice with them at home. Ultimately, does it really matter how responsible a gun owner may be if the wrong hands get hold of their gun or guns?
Other countries have stricter gun laws and fewer murders than we do; the United States is young and irresponsible by comparison. How long will our youthful nation be an excuse for outrageous misbehavior? How can we be a super power without super brains and super hearts? If the horrendous killings in Connecticut do not bring about a drastic change in the manufacture and ownership of assault and assassin weapons in this country, then what will? Have we become immune to such unacceptable violence because of the constant news around the world and fake Hollywood blood? Heaven forbid that the media should have to plaster the terrible images of those poor little bodies all over the Internet before a change in unbridled gun power could be achieved! But would seeing the true destruction of innocents actually produce a gut-wrenching, sympathetic reaction from the NRA and its members? Would the in-your-face reality of death shock kids into thinking about what their favorite shoot-em-up video games are mimicking?
Common sense is all I am asking everyone to contemplate. The founding fathers had no clues about machine guns and repeating rifles. They were armed with flintlocks, lead balls, and gun powder horns. They used their single-shot weapons for food, dueling, and fending off Indians and the British. It is totally illogical to equate those 1791 weapons and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms at the beginning of this 13-state nation with today’s firearms and population…
So, what do you think? Does my intolerance of violence and over-the-top guns and ammo make me generally intolerant, narrow-minded, and hypocritical? My opinions and views come from my heart and my mind, from observation, experience, and research. If we do not use the brains God gave us to do good things, then what’s the point?