Thursday, June 18, 2015

On Guns


Another tragedy in the US as a lone man killed 9 people inside a Baptist church, while members were holding a prayer meeting.

And the inevitable question arises: should there be more gun control in the US?

For once, I have to agree with President Obama as he said that this simply does not occur in other countries with the regularity that it does in the US, and the problem is guns.

Now, I know that those who believe in the right of private citizens will cite the second amendment of the constitution which gives the regular folks the right to "bear arms". But this amendment comes from a time when people really did need to protect themselves from violent assaults by their enemies and to hold their own against intrusive government. But the times have changed, and don't we now protect ourselves with the law and with our words, instead of our weapons?

The latest perpetrator used a hand gun, supposedly the one his father gave to him as a gift. And gun laws allow guns to be exchanged within a family. But this guy is nuts, surely anyone can see that, except perhaps the father who gave him the gun.

But if there had been no gun to be given, those nine people would be alive now.

There is no longer any need to protect yourself from the overreaching government with a weapon; we now have our courts and our logic and our words to do our fighting. The time for violence with weapons is past. If a psychopath gets violent, without a gun, he will have to resort to a weapon like a knife which does a lot less damage.

I for one am in favour of more gun control. I just do not see the need for private citizens to have guns in their homes. Let those who disagree leave a comment.





1 comment:

Rebecca said...

So, here is my question to you. You say you favour increased gun control in the US - what would that look like? What is a reasonable approach to increased gun control? Stricter laws regarding who can possess a firearm, or the outright banning of firearms being owned by private citizens? Or can they only have firearms suitable for sport shooting, and under what circumstances? (And how does one define "sport shooting" anyway?) I would be very, very leery of the outright banning of firearms; it uncomfortably reeks of totalitarianism to me (and to many others, for good, sound, historical reasons). So what would be the ideal situation, and how do you enforce it?

Also, I'm not sure that you can really argue that we don't have intrusive government nowadays. I'm sure the government has full access to all of your supposedly private electronic communication, for one example.

Also, the protection of the laws and the courts does not always work perfectly or at all, sometimes. It certainly hasn't helped the millions of unborn babies that were not killed by guns.

(I am NOT saying this to be contrary. I think it's a good question and a discussion that needs to happen. But there's my perspective, as a US person.)