The Dark Knight Massacre Brings Out Discussions Of More Gun Laws.

There are quite a lot of people making quite a lot of decent arguments for, and against gun laws now. Please don’t start turning this incident political. This is a matter of what’s right for the largest number of people. Think outside yourselves when you consider gun laws, and see if you can see a benefit that outweighs the negatives. Maybe you can, maybe you can’t. That’s why I raise the question.

I mean, in one hand, you have a crazy person with a gun, and in the other, a crazy person without a gun. Note which one kills somebody. You could argue that the gun is the variable here, and so the gun is the enabler of violence.

But then consider it in a different situation. There’s a normal, sane individual with a gun, and a normal sane individual without a gun. Nobody dies. Now if the gun is the enabler, why didn’t it enable? If it didn’t enable, would we say that the person has ultimate control of the weapon? If we say the person has ultimate control of the weapon, we could say that the mental state of the human being is the variable. With that in mind, we know why the crazy person from before killed somebody. He wasn’t mentally sane.

There are a lot of arguments for and against. I don’t own a gun, and I have no immediate plans to ever own one. I’m not going to advocate for gun laws just because of personal situation though. Same should apply to gun owners. You shouldn’t fight gun laws just because you own one. Take yourselves outside of your own situation to assess the situation for a moment. I know this is difficult for many of you, especially my right-minded friends, but wrap your head around the concept of thinking beyond the individual for just a moment.

What would the overall picture be with stronger gun regulations? What do you believe will happen? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about an entire ban on the weapons. I’m talking about shortening the lease, and putting more enforcement on ownership and usage, whether that means making it more expensive, more taxes, more tests, or something else.

The key to this debate, which I hope to read in the comments section below, is that you cannot be objective without taking yourself out of the equation. For example, the NRA isn’t objective in their argument on this issue, because they have two things that skew their judgement:

  • Invested Interest
  • Money

The first element of the NRA is giving them bias. They have a stake in the decision, and that stake is element number 2. Money. Money gives people power, both politically and socially. What you have here then, is an organization with an invested interest in maintaining power.

Do you trust this type of entity to make a fair assessment of a situation regarding their interests? Don’t count on it.

The same can be said for people on the other side of this argument though. Politicians who support gun laws have a stake in the outcome as well, because it will potentially lead to votes. The lesson to be learned from all of this is that you cannot listen to one side of any issue and expect to get an accurate assessment. That’s like listening to Rush Limbaugh.

So my question to you calls for you to assess the situation from both sides, and weaning out the trash. Don’t bother referencing the bible or the constitution, or any other form of paper text written by groups of men with agendas. Think about the society you live in today: your family, your friends, the culture of your neighborhood, and the culture of the neighborhoods around the country. Think about the people, and the level of responsibility they have in general. People outside of yourself or your family, and situations outside of yourself and your family. Consider the pros and cons of stricter gun laws.

What could come from stronger gun laws? A safer America? Less gun-related killings? Less crime overall? Or perhaps more crime and gun related killings when people can’t protect themselves? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below

Charlie Pryor

Charlie is a media producer, writer, and a traveler. He grew up in Michigan, all of his life and attended Grand Valley State University for a B.S. in Film and Video Production. He's married to a wonderful woman named Hang, and simply hopes to one day turn himself into a man that many will remember long after he's gone.

You may also like...

8 comments
Nam Tran
Nam Tran

Even with stronger gun laws, you won't be able to take away all the guns from the criminals who have access to them! I would say we have 3 type of people in the US who own guns: Police/military personnel, Citizens with gun permits, and Criminals. Gun laws would most likely only affect the Citizens who own gun permits.

Charlie Pryor
Charlie Pryor

Tighter import regulations and border control would greatly reduce the number of weapons that criminals have. It's not about controlling the weapons that are already owned and those being circulated. It's about controlling who possesses the supply for the consumers. Much like Drugs, we'll never totally eliminate it. But that isn't the argument. We shouldn't look to eliminate them.

Rob Ahrns
Rob Ahrns

I would like to say that as much as I hope this does not go political, it will which is kind of sad. When incidents like this happen, both sides of the argument always like to jump up and say, "I told you so!". I would also like to say that you point out some good points when it comes to normal people vs crazy people. Any person that can be deemed "normal" may not be so quick to hurt someone as someone deemed "crazy" is. But the person who is crazy may also see other things as weapons like a knife, baseball bat, or maybe even things you would think are not weapons like headphones or pillows. Now before you read the next part I just want to say that I will try my best not to sound bias. I grew up around guns. My dad is an avid collector and I have handle, shot, and taken apart a few different rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Actually I have handled the exact guns that the shooter used in this tragedy. I would also like to say that I do NOT fully support the NRA. Yes I follow them on the internet and they are pro-gun yes, but as you even said, their opinions are jaded and they have money. With that comes power and I do not really want a bunch of one sided people in power. Now down to your questions... Honestly, I do not think that changing gun laws, will not have an effect either way. I do not think killings will necessarily go down, they may lessen, but I do no think they will escalate either. I can see setting an age, which right now is 18 or 21 depending on states I believe, to own a firearm. I do feel that records should be kept on what a person owns. Should there be a cap? No. If a person wants to own 20 guns, let them. I do feel that their should be a nationwide test that people should take in order to have a firearm. Have it work much like a drivers licenses. So if you have this license you can own a firearm. If you don't then you can't. Also have those who have one retake the test every 4 or 5 years. Again, have it work like a drivers licenses. I know they already have something similar to this, but it allows you to carry a gun not necessarily own one. This is my thought for now. I hope that it didn't sound to bias or jaded. My mind was starting to get away from so I have to stop for a bit in order to regain focus.

Charlie Pryor
Charlie Pryor

Nancy Root: I agree that the guns aren't the issue, and that the "crazy people" are. However, most of the human race's ability for survival on this planet depends on one critical concept that no other species has yet escalated to our level on: Adaptability. Part of adaptability is making changes to how our lives are run, how government is run, and how the minds within the people of our culture think critically. If guns aren't the issue, but there are still a lot of deaths as a result of crazy people having them, then what exactly is the option for adaptability. If this was a business, there would be cuts someplace. On one side, crazy people cannot be eliminated, or even reduced, because their predictability is impossible to manage. Then again, many crazy people are able to be identified, but we do not do anything about them until they become a danger to society. Sadly, we don't know they are a danger until they kill over a dozen people in a movie theater, and booby-trap their apartment On the other side, we have firearms. The practicality and function of which is hunting game, governmental control through military, police officers, and other forms of security and self-protection. Firearms, unlike crazy people, are easy to predict, and far easier to control. If the country was a business (and in many ways it is), a manager (or owner/member) would attempt to control the task environment-that which they can control and predict-rather then the external variables that they cannot. While we can say crazy people are the fault, and that guns aren't at fault, we can both agree that the gun is the enabler that allows them to do mass terror and harm. It's the single force that people can control, if needed, and thus, it is the only variable which we as a people can adapt to for a happier life, if not survival as a whole.

Charlie Pryor
Charlie Pryor

I agree that the guns aren't the issue, and that the "crazy people" are. However, most of the human race's ability for survival on this planet depends on one critical concept that no other species has yet escalated to our level on: Adaptability. Part of adaptability is making changes to how our lives are run, how government is run, and how the minds within the people of our culture think critically. If guns aren't the issue, but there are still a lot of deaths as a result of crazy people having them, then what exactly is the option for adaptability. If this was a business, there would be cuts someplace. On one side, crazy people cannot be eliminated, or even reduced, because their predictability is impossible to manage. Then again, many crazy people are able to be identified, but we do not do anything about them until they become a danger to society. Sadly, we don't know they are a danger until they kill over a dozen people in a movie theater, and booby-trap their apartment On the other side, we have firearms. The practicality and function of which is hunting game, governmental control through military, police officers, and other forms of security and self-protection. Firearms, unlike crazy people, are easy to predict, and far easier to control. If the country was a business (and in many ways it is), a manager (or owner/member) would attempt to control the task environment-that which they can control and predict-rather then the external variables that they cannot. While we can say crazy people are the fault, and that guns aren't at fault, we can both agree that the gun is the enabler that allows them to do mass terror and harm. It's the single force that people can control, if needed, and thus, it is the only variable which we as a people can adapt to for a happier life, if not survival as a hole

Nancy Root
Nancy Root

The guns aren't the problem it's the crazy people....and their are way too many of them!!

Chris R. Stevens
Chris R. Stevens

tl;dr but anyways this is a freak occurrence that nobody could have predicted and from what I skimmed, I agree with you. Getting tighter on gun restrictions will not prevent maniacs from acquiring them.

Michael Stevens
Michael Stevens

I think a psych eval wouldn't be out of the question either.

Follow

Follow this blog

Email address