![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quoting a friend, because they already did the link-chasing:
"I'm not sure what is says about the US when The Onion has some of the most prescient and spot-on commentary on the dysfunctional American love affair with guns in the aftermath of the Newtown Connecticut mass shooting, but it surely isn't anything good."
We live in a society, today, in America, where guns are too often the wrong answer[1] to a question that shouldn't need to be asked so often in the first place: "How do I cope with this terrible situation in which I find myself?"
Taking away guns doesn't expressly answer the question, but adding them doesn't, either.
Does reducing the gun population reduce the risk of gun violence? Yes.
Does reducing the gun population increase the chance of us collectively answering the question, or finding out why it is asked? Probably not, but fewer people will get killed by them while we collectively try to do so.
And that's why it's the right thing to do. This has nothing to do with keeping people from forming militias or standing up to a fictional social apocalypse (because, really, no home armory is going to stand up to a goddamned tank or missile if the government *really* wants to fuck up your shit).
People are, every day, reaching for a gun to solve their problems; this is a real thing that happens, whether it's to rob someone for money, as an ultima ratio regum to solve a dispute, to express the inchoate rage and despair at a workplace, or simply to commit suicide to exit an overwhelmingly awful personal situation.
Those things can be prevented (or solved) without guns, but it's hard. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done anyway.
I stand by my position, unpopular though it may be among my friends and acquaintances alike. There are too many fucking guns.
I know a lot of gun owners. I've gone shooting recreationally (target and skeet), and most of the men in my family have hunted at least occasionally (though I have not). None of that matters or stands up to the fact that, when things reach the point where someone reaches for a gun out of desperation, it's no longer skill, or recreation, or an expression of personal freedom. It is a tool used to kill or maim, and should not be there.
From http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-and-minds-ive-had-gun-pointed-in.html:
When I had that gun pointed in my face all those years ago, I didn't think, "Damn, I wish I had a gun, too." I didn't think, "Damn, I wish someone else with a gun would come along and save me." I thought, "Damn, I wish he didn't have a gun."
[1] In matters of personal safety, such as the one Chris![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mckitterick mentioned, a firearm, or the threat of one, may be what's called for, but non-projectile/non-lethal home defense options exist, and don't lead to situations like the Zimmerman/Martin shooting.
"I'm not sure what is says about the US when The Onion has some of the most prescient and spot-on commentary on the dysfunctional American love affair with guns in the aftermath of the Newtown Connecticut mass shooting, but it surely isn't anything good."
We live in a society, today, in America, where guns are too often the wrong answer[1] to a question that shouldn't need to be asked so often in the first place: "How do I cope with this terrible situation in which I find myself?"
Taking away guns doesn't expressly answer the question, but adding them doesn't, either.
Does reducing the gun population reduce the risk of gun violence? Yes.
Does reducing the gun population increase the chance of us collectively answering the question, or finding out why it is asked? Probably not, but fewer people will get killed by them while we collectively try to do so.
And that's why it's the right thing to do. This has nothing to do with keeping people from forming militias or standing up to a fictional social apocalypse (because, really, no home armory is going to stand up to a goddamned tank or missile if the government *really* wants to fuck up your shit).
People are, every day, reaching for a gun to solve their problems; this is a real thing that happens, whether it's to rob someone for money, as an ultima ratio regum to solve a dispute, to express the inchoate rage and despair at a workplace, or simply to commit suicide to exit an overwhelmingly awful personal situation.
Those things can be prevented (or solved) without guns, but it's hard. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done anyway.
I stand by my position, unpopular though it may be among my friends and acquaintances alike. There are too many fucking guns.
I know a lot of gun owners. I've gone shooting recreationally (target and skeet), and most of the men in my family have hunted at least occasionally (though I have not). None of that matters or stands up to the fact that, when things reach the point where someone reaches for a gun out of desperation, it's no longer skill, or recreation, or an expression of personal freedom. It is a tool used to kill or maim, and should not be there.
From http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-and-minds-ive-had-gun-pointed-in.html:
When I had that gun pointed in my face all those years ago, I didn't think, "Damn, I wish I had a gun, too." I didn't think, "Damn, I wish someone else with a gun would come along and save me." I thought, "Damn, I wish he didn't have a gun."
[1] In matters of personal safety, such as the one Chris
mckitterick mentioned, a firearm, or the threat of one, may be what's called for, but non-projectile/non-lethal home defense options exist, and don't lead to situations like the Zimmerman/Martin shooting.
