Sunday, December 16, 2012

Defending the Indefensible

I'm not about to go into the details of the tragedy of Newtown, Connecticut. There has been enough coverage of it and as a result too much sadness for too many people.

What I am doing is voicing my personal opinion on what should follow such a tragic event. There is currently a heated discussion on this topic occurring on the Males in EC Facebook Page.

Anyone who owns a gun and keeps it in their possession needs to have a long hard look at the reasons they do. If you are one of those people and live in the USA you might well use the 2nd Amendment to defend your 'Right' to bear arms. This is in fact exactly what the 2nd Amendment says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Now a rational person may read that and  see that the 'Right' was intended only for those individuals being part of the militia to protect the Free State. Those who read an individual's 'Right' to bear arms should not be infringed are missing the point in my humble opinion. If the Amendment was intended to refer to individuals in isolation than there would be absolutely no necessity to even mention a militia or security of a Free State.

If you keep a gun to keep you and your family safe then perhaps you should be aware that you are much more likely to harm yourself or someone you love with such a weapon than to use it against an intruder. Or that the intruder will use that very firearm against you.

The sad fact is that most murders and mass killings occur by means of use of legal guns. It is also a terrifying fact that the NRA is such a powerful force in the USA. So powerful that change through political means is highly unlikely.

You can own a gun if you wish. Many people do and use them at shooting clubs or for hunting. Keep them locked away at such clubs, stored separately from the ammunition. When you require them you should have to sign for them with adequate ID.

History has proven they do not deter crime. If you possess a gun then someone will simply come along with a bigger gun or more weapons. Where a society if so full of and reliant on guns there can be no winners. They were created to cause death and that is their main purpose.

Once again, these are my personal views. Feel free to disagree with any or all I have talked about here. But please think about your actions and their possible consequences. Even if such consequences are simply the messages we are sending our children. Do not post hateful comments as they will be reported. I will publish any comments that add to the discussion and are constructive, regardless of whether you agree or disagree


  1. What upsets me the most is the fact this has become a debate on gun control and the second Amendment. This is like putting a Band-Aid over a hole in a damn and when the water rushes out saying we need to work on improving Band-Aids. All of the cases of shootings have been committed by people who have had social and emotional problems. Why aren't we looking at the mental health services? Why aren't we discussing how to teach our children now to be more compassionate and understanding? Why aren't we focusing on how we can help people BEFORE they get to this point?

    We've seen it as young as preschool: A child pretends they have a toy gun and "shoots" friends. If you just take away the toy and say no guns, the child will still make another toy weapon at some point. But if you educate the child on being a good friend, a good citizen, on playing kindly, the lessons will eventually be passed on by the child.
    Let's stop focusing on the tool used for the fear and destruction and start focusing on the people causing it and the reasons they do.

    1. Thanks for you response, but I'd be more respectful of your stance if you didn't hide behind anonymity.

      You are right in that we need to find better methods for dealing with mental health issues, but to say that is the problem and not the guns is wrong on two key points. Not all shootings are carried out by people with social/emotional problems. Mass shootings perhaps (I do not the data for that), but far more people are killed in single shootings than are in mass murders. Secondly, most Are teaching young children to be compassionate and understanding.

      To add to that, children learn much more from what they see then what they're told. If they see their parents, neighbours or members of community with guns it is acceptable in their eyes. Also, which private citizen requires an automatic weapon? Even if this gunman could only access a pistol it would most likely have resulted in fewer deaths. Still deaths, but much fewer. Automatic weapons are designed to kill as many as possible in the shortest time.

      preschoolers do pretend to have guns ans shoot them, but banning them drives them undergraound as you say. A child will invariably find a way. Research has actually shown that children who are empowered to use gun representaions in their play are significantly less likely to actually desire to use a gun later in life. It's the submission of that desire that is kept until later when a blanket 'no guns' rule is enforced.

      Finally, you analogy that debating gun control is like a band aid over a hole in a damn is fanciful. Actually using the 2nd Amendment for its intendee purpose and stricter gun laws would go quite a way to reducing injuries and death resulting from firearms.

      May I also commend you on your civil approach to providing your point of view. Many who share your stance become quite vehement, often to the point where hatred it spouted. Thanks for keeping it civil.