![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanI was out and about in the city this afternoon when I heard about the shooting in Connecticut. Twenty young children, dead, along with several adults. My second thought (proven by responses onTwitter) was that there will STILL be people who insist that their 'right' to own weapons of any and all calibre trumps all other rights. I no longer engage that argument, because IMO you can't reason with the level of self-interest and selfishness that puts "I want" over the greater welfare.
People kill people, yes. Violence is a constant with our species. Guns allow these people to walk into a room or an office and kill many people quickly, without a chance of defense. And a well-armed populace is not the answer - then you get a lot of people shooting in a panic, and killing more innocent people. Even cops - trained to react under stress and fire - often get it wrong. You really think you could pick out the shooter more effectively? Or would you be like the armed civilian in Arizona, who almost shot a first responder trying to help Gabby Giffords, rather than the actual shooter?
I am not anti-gun. I am for federal-level, standardized, enforced restrictions and regulation. A gun is not a toy, it is a weapon designed to kill, be it animals, or humans. Even if all you ever shoot at are targets, it is what it is. Responsible, decent gun owners should be PUSHING for national-level regulation, keeping the bar high for ownership, rather than fighting it.
And I have no patience with those who will try to justify the status quo, or say it's "not the time to talk about it." We had another shooting a few days ago in Portland - when IS it time to change the laws? When the next person dies? Or the next?
EtA: and yes, I was trained in gun use and safety as a teenager. I've been hunting. I'm preaching what I practice.
Comments are turned off. This is one time I'm not offering a question for debate.
People kill people, yes. Violence is a constant with our species. Guns allow these people to walk into a room or an office and kill many people quickly, without a chance of defense. And a well-armed populace is not the answer - then you get a lot of people shooting in a panic, and killing more innocent people. Even cops - trained to react under stress and fire - often get it wrong. You really think you could pick out the shooter more effectively? Or would you be like the armed civilian in Arizona, who almost shot a first responder trying to help Gabby Giffords, rather than the actual shooter?
I am not anti-gun. I am for federal-level, standardized, enforced restrictions and regulation. A gun is not a toy, it is a weapon designed to kill, be it animals, or humans. Even if all you ever shoot at are targets, it is what it is. Responsible, decent gun owners should be PUSHING for national-level regulation, keeping the bar high for ownership, rather than fighting it.
And I have no patience with those who will try to justify the status quo, or say it's "not the time to talk about it." We had another shooting a few days ago in Portland - when IS it time to change the laws? When the next person dies? Or the next?
EtA: and yes, I was trained in gun use and safety as a teenager. I've been hunting. I'm preaching what I practice.
Comments are turned off. This is one time I'm not offering a question for debate.
