"It is on days like this that we are reminded of how much more alike than different we are, when we see that tears have no color, when ideologies melt into a common heart broken by sorrow".
The only thing I would add to that is that I find it sad that the only time we can come together as a nation is in the wake of tragedies like this; that the only time a staunch conservative and bleeding heart liberal can stand by side on a stage with common purpose is when it is time to mourn.
Of course, it won't last long. Already we are in a sharp skirmish over gun control laws. But if I were to place my bets, I wouldn't place them on having some kind of sober national dialogue that actually changes anything. Neither presidential candidate is likely to make gun control a plank in their campaign platform, and soon we'll be squabbling over Romney's tax returns and Obama's birth certificate once more. Normal service shall resume.
But let's focus on the current debate, however briefly it may last. The arguments are familiar. One side says if we simply outlawed all guns, the deranged perpetrator of these shootings would have never had access to the weapons he used and the shooting would have never happened. The other side says that if someone had been carrying a gun in the theater they might have been able to take this guy and maybe save some lives.
As with most purely ideological stances, both are arguments I find to be impracticable. You simply can't ban all guns. Our nation does have a gun culture (whether you like it or not), and if someone wants to have rifles for hunting or shotguns for home defense, if some old lady wants to carry around a 9mm in her handbag because it makes her feel safe, well, more power to them. It's their right to do so.
On the other hand, when does somebody's right to own weapons infringe on another persons right to feel reasonably safe walking down the street or going to the movies without one? While I readily recognize the fact that we have a gun culture, I also believe that it is out of control. The argument that a citizen carrying a gun can thwart an event like this makes me think that the gun lobby really wants our nation to resemble the wild west. Thanks, but that's really not a society I want to live in (though I'll take the hats and mustaches). I'd really rather not have to lock and load just to go to the library. Also, I wish to point out that it seems to me a person carrying a handgun in this situation might be a little outmatched by a man wearing tactical armor and carrying an AR-15. Just an opinion.
So, Government: I would like to see more sensible gun control laws, please. I think a good place to start would be a ban on assault rifles. The only reason to have one is if, as the name implies, you are going to actually assault something. Private citizens should have no need to do so. And sorry, I don't buy all that stuff about how an armed citizenry safeguards democracy. The implied threat of open violence against the government laced within such an argument is just a little frightening. This isn't 1776.
It's impossible to completely prevent tragedies such as the Dark Knight Shootings, April 16th, or Columbine. I have to believe, though, that banning assault rifles and 100 round clips (or at least making them very, very hard to obtain) would lower the heartbreaking frequency at which these acts of depravity occur. And when they do happen, maybe the lives lost will be less. The police may be able to move in faster knowing a suspect is more lightly armed than they. Maybe even that granny with the 9mm in her handbag would actually stand a chance.
But there is no way our nation would ever be so sensible. No way that the gun lobby, safe guarders of liberty and keepers of the peace, would be okay with giving up a freedom we really don't need so that the rest of us can actually be a little bit safer as we pursue our own happiness. There is simply too much money, and votes, at stake.
And so it goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment