<
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:
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]]>
