I haven't waded much into the gun control debate of post-Sandy Hook. I'll admit, my first reactions that day were based on 'round'em up, round all the guns up now!' That's why policy shouldn't be decided in the heat of the moment, not unless massive human life is depending on it. The same could be said, of course, about the death penalty. I've always been against the death penalty, largely on the grounds that no legal system is perfect, and one innocent person executed isn't worth the feelings of justice that capital punishment evoke. Still, there are times when I would gleefully pull the trigger if given the chance, simply out of the horror of what criminals are sometimes capable of. Hence the need for reason to check emotion.
So rushing to policy decisions when something like Sandy Hook occurs is not, IMHO, a great idea. It's better to take a deep breath, and look at the facts. Like these, that suggest gun ownership and mass shootings really aren't connected. Naturally there could be other facts that suggest other things, and I'm fine with looking at them all to see what we might see. You never know. I doubt there's anyone who doesn't pray there will never be another Newtown.
But the price is too high for knee-jerk reactions and emotionally driven responses. Sure, it's an emotional topic. Who wasn't cut to the heart that day when the news of Newtown first broke? But the goal is finding a solution, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not to base solutions on ideas that are refuted by actual facts. Certainly not rushing through things that could do more harm than good. And yes, that means compromising our liberties. I, for one, have been shocked that individuals who have spent years trashing our government over its claims that our liberties might need to be re-imagined in our war against terrorism are suddenly acting as if any damn fool knows we should be ready to compromise our liberties to prevent another Sandy Hook.
It's that sort of thing that we must avoid. Sit down and find answers? You bet. Look for solutions? Oh yeah. Do whatever it takes to prevent another Sandy Hook? No. Not whatever. Because there is an immense volume of terror that can be put into a term like 'whatever'. And if our desire is for the best for everyone, we'll not forget it.
The most annoying part is the dishonesty of the debate. You'll find people who say "let's talk about what can be done" but the second you start actually doing that, you realize they have a very narrow view of what is "acceptable" debate. Like, instead of trying to ban guns (which is going to be nigh impossible since the tech can be replicated in garages see: Prohibition) why not ban schools? Spread the children out, don't let them congregate into shooting galleries and it will be a lot easier to get rid of schools than guns.
ReplyDeleteOr as Steve Kellmeyer pointed out, the more distance you put between yourself and an attacker, the greater your chances of survival. So it would seem like the best hope would be to put some kind of "escape hatches" in each classroom (the window probably) and if something happens, let the kids get out and run for their lives. Heck in a lot of places, they can just run home or to a friend's/neighbor's house.
Then again, if you even attempt to get the facts right about the case, you're labeled as "pettifogging" (or something). For instance, there's growing evidence that the guns & features everybody is wanting to ban may not have been used in the Newton shooting in the first place. But bringing this up in some places is a good way to get banned. It's like there's some point where we get so emotional, we actually don't WANT facts to enter into it. That would get in the way of our emotional buzz.
To be brutally honest, I'm the first to say the problems are beyond just the guns. There's a reason. If we really wanted to solve the problem, we would take a long, hard look at factors that have nothing to do with guns. Sure, we can always look at all factors. I just notice there are so many things not even close to the table.
ReplyDeleteExactly. So often in today's world I notice that whenever someone talks about "discussion" or "debate" it ends up being a passive-aggressive way to get you to shut up.
ReplyDeleteAn example would be if say Alice and Bob are discussing where to go eat. They have a choice in their town between Mexican, Chinese, or fast food. Now Alice won't say what she wants to eat, but she'll make very clear that Bob can't dare bring up fast food or mexican.