Cliche as all hell, but accurate. Now let me warn you, some of you will agree. Some of you will disagree. Some of you will agree to disagree. What follows is but my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. They're like assholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.
I was on Facebook today (nothing new there) and I saw a picture that I thought summed up the gun debate quite accurately.
By this very logic, which is actually quite accurate, we should blame forks for obesity and pencils for bad grammar/spelling. After sharing this, I was actually privy to a well formed debate with a young man on my Facebook by the name of Matt Resch. I will be quoting excerpts of our debate. He and I went back and forth stating our opinions and viewpoints. That is not to say that either of us fully agrees with the other. I believe we have come to point of "agreeing to disagree".
"Well bombs aren't that easy to get a hold of, there also illegal to own if I'm not mistaken. there would be even more of an uproar if they tried to outlaw cars , but drunk driving is indeed illegal so yes, we blame the driver for breaking the law. But it's really hard to shoot someone without a gun. I mean, you can't just go up to someone and tell "BANG!" And expect it to do anything. And you certainly can't do any damage by just throwing the bullet at someone. So I think the gun helps at least a little bit."
He has some very valid points here. Bombs are quite difficult to obtain. And quite illegal. Trying to outlaw cars would cause an uproar of phenomenal proportions. However, I did refute the latter part in my reply.
"Agreed, Matt. However, if you load same said gun and place it on a table and don't touch it, it does no more harm than a drunk who is not behind the wheel of a car. All of these things require human interaction to become dangerous/deadly. Cars don't drive themselves drunk. Bombs don't climb into bombers of their own accord, fly said plane then jump out. Hence we blame the human. Guns don't fire themselves. Hence, the human should be blamed. Not the gun. It's only logical. I hate using this cliche, but the logic is infallible. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"."
No matter your viewpoint on gun control, no one can infallibly argue, with empirical evidence, that a gun will operate and commit a murder without a human presence. It simply doesn't happen. As much as I think Ted Nugent is a rabid megalomaniac, the lunatic once made a valid point. "I loaded my gun, set it down and aimed it towards the door. It didn't fire, so I told the weapon it was a good boy." (Thank you Susan MeeLing for reminding me of that quote.) Guns can misfire, yes. To quote the Wikipedia page on "Accidental Discharge"...
"...most commonly, accidental discharges...occur when the trigger of the firearm is deliberately pulled for a purpose other than shooting—dry-fire practice, demonstration, or function testing—but ammunition is negligently left in the chamber. Unintentionally leaving a firearm loaded is more likely to occur when the individual handling the gun is poorly trained, and perhaps also with removable-magazine-fed firearms...a second common cause of accidental discharges is when the gun-handler places his finger on the trigger before he has decided to shoot. With the finger so positioned, many activities may cause the finger to compress the trigger unintentionally. For example, if one attempts to holster the firearm with finger on trigger, the holster edge will drive the finger onto the trigger, and discharge is likely. If one stumbles or struggles...with finger on trigger, the grasping motion of both hands will likely cause the trigger finger to compress the trigger...on occasion, an accidental discharge can occur by means other than the finger pulling the trigger, such as dropping a loaded weapon. Because of this possibility, most currently produced pistols are designed with a "drop-safety" or firing pin block, a mechanism inhibiting or isolating the firing pin, preventing accidental discharge if the firearm is dropped."
As you can plainly see, with one rare exception, all causes of accidental discharge come from some form of human interaction. And gun manufactures have measures in place to prevent an accidental discharge from dropping the firearm. So that again points back to human interaction.
"well. guns CAN go off unexpectedly, but yes, i see your point. however, on the topic of logic. lets look at some of the reasons people say guns control shouldn't exist.
1. if guns are illegal, only criminals will have them.
that means were assuming that the average criminal can afford a black market gun. now drugs are extremely expensive, but you can buy them 20$ at a time, so its not as big a deal. but you can't really buy fractions of a gun. and if you could, they probably wouldn't offer that option on the black market. therefore we can safely assume that any gun would cost an arm and a leg to purchase if they were illegal. money most criminals actually don't have. and even if they do, there's A LOT of things they're gonna have to buy before they consider dropping a few thousand dollars on a .38 special. (I'm not a gun person so i think that's what the tiny 6 shooter pistol is called)
2. guns don't kill people, people kill people
while on the surface, seems to make sense. but like i said before. you cant just throw a bullet at someone and expect it to kill them, or just yell "BANG!" so i think it's safe to assume that the gun helps at least a little. and i mean, really, what else in the world can kill somebody in an act as simple as pulling a trigger/pushing a button? it makes it hella easier. And i think it goes without saying that the shooter would share an equal, if not more amount of blame than the gun in the aftermath of a murder.
3. i need it for defense
against who? people breaking into your house? you know most of those people just want your TV or belongings? hardly something worth a life. and they say you are much more likely to use a gun in your house on yourself than an intruder. or a child could find it and use it on themselves or a friend. happens all the time.
3 1/2. that would never happen because i keep my gun locked up!
well then its not serving much a function as protection is it? somebody breaks into your house. "AH! finally! boy buddy did you pick the wrong house to rob tonight, let me tell you! (left 35) you just wait right there! have i go something for you! (right 6) just wait right there! hold on! I've almost got it!
4. In Australia, in 96 i believe, there was a huge massacre involving guns. so the prime minister/president/whatever said "OK! no more guns!" and Australia went "...OK, yeah, that seems fair." and there hasn't been a massacre ever since. we have a bunch of school shootings in the same year and our government goes "MAYBE...just MAYBE...we should reform our gun control laws?...at least make it a little harder to purchase them?" and over 50% of America went "F*** YOU, I LIKE GUNS!"
5. why should i have to give my guns up because some idiot used his wrong? that's not fair!
well, yeah, it kinda is. i like to drink and use drugs. but because one day little Timmy took acid and thought he could fly and jumped off a bridge, now NONE of us can use drugs! because that's the way it works in a society! you have to cater to the weakest link. and personally, i think drugs, which really only have the ability to harm YOU, and that's only IF you don't know what you are doing. are significantly safer than guns, which truly have no other purpose than to kill or harm people. i mean, they're called ASSAULT rifles. not protections rifles. which is another thing. if you need a gun for protection, hunting, ANYTHING. name me one advantage that having a shotgun or assault rifle will bring you that you couldn't accomplish with a pistol? i personally enjoy my venison when it tastes like meat. NOT like a billion bullets."
He has some great points, well thought out and logically formed, yes? I also have no desire to have my venison taste "like a billion bullets". I even gave him his due credit. However, logic is logic. And as such, it travels a straight line, applying itself to everything in it's way. As I point out.
"1. You are right. Guns can be expensive. I imagine the same is true of the black market. I have never owned a gun, so I don't know. However, if the gun laws that are desired are put into place (all guns confiscated, which historically has been a bad idea, Australia aside) then the cost of guns will drop, making them easier to obtain.
2. Yes, the gun helps in the committing of a murder. As much as a car does in a drunk driving death. Yet, generally speaking, the American public does not say "Well, because this guy got wasted and killed little Timmy, we name to make it harder to purchase a car!" or "The number of drunk driving deaths (which is statistically higher than deaths by guns[10,322 deaths from drunk driving vs 10,078 deaths by gun related homicide in 2012]) has become so atrocious that we need to outlaw cars altogether!" As you said, the public outcry would be phenomenal. Because Americans prefer to drive in comfort. Taking away cars takes away creature comforts. Taking away guns isn't a creature comfort.
3. Guns actually serve an amazing purpose of self-defense. Sometimes, just the sight of a gun on a person is enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime from being committed. Texas has an open carry law for long rifles. Their crime rate is quite low. You're less likely to mess with someone with an AR-15 strapped to their back. Yet, that AR-15 doesn't have to locked and loaded, or even lifted. It's a visual deterrent. Also, let's take the Sandy Hook shooting. If the principal had a gun (any firearm), the likelihood stands that those children would've lived to see another Christmas. And many more. She did not. No means of defense.
3a. The assumption is that gun safes have combination locks, because of the word safe. This is incorrect. Most gun safes have a keyed lock. Or a child-proof easy release. Also, gun manufacturers are making guns now that the safety requires more strength to release, hence making a child unable to accidentally fire off the gun.
4. Australia is a shining example of gun control gone right. However, the litmus test of history stands in glaring contradiction. Hitler, Mussolini, and the likes. Also, England did the same. Not even their police carry firearms. Their rate of gun related violence did not drop. Now, the police are also sitting ducks. Even they can no longer protect.
5. If drugs only have the ability to harm if you use them wrong, the same logic must apply to guns. Logic travels a straight line, applying itself to everything in its path. Using drugs as an analogy, the logic must be applied to guns. Guns only have the ability to harm someone if used wrong. Let's take Switzerland. The most peaceful country in the world. Also, the most heavily armed. Even the citizens are armed. Given guns at an early age and taught how to clean and use them properly. Perhaps we should take a page from Switzerland. Don't eliminate guns (Second Amendment - "...right to bear arms." was actually meant as a means for the citizens to defend themselves against a wayward state militia, not each other), just make them a little more difficult to obtain, and mandate that all gun owners (past, present and future) take classes to learn the proper care and use of a firearm."
I admit my error in my logic on point one. Matt himself pointed that out to me. Taking guns off the market would cause higher demand. Higher demand equals higher cost. Now, just so you're aware, there was an argument in the middle of all of this between he and a friend of mine. I am not including that because this is about mine and Matt's debate. I apologize, Susan. This blog post is to demonstrate how two opposing viewpoints can be posed succinctly.
"Regarding your reply to my comment on your 3rd point, the principal at Sandy Hook was one of the adult victims. She threw herself in front of the gunman to protect the children, basically acting as a human shield. If she had the wherewithal to take that course of action, I am of the firm, logical belief that she would have also had the wherewithal to pull a trigger. Regarding the street level criminal statement, statistically speaking, most gun related homicides occur on a higher level than that. Mass media, having been an employee of mass media, sensationalizes that which get them the best ratings. Gun debates are a hot topic currently. Therefore, pointing out the crime where the young black man shot the old white storekeeper is only logical. It helps to keep their ratings up, as well as helping a system that wants gun illegalization. All mass media is governed by the FCC. A commission of the federal government. Not claiming it's a conspiracy theory, just stating facts. As for drugs harming other people, it happens way more than the general American public is aware of. That is the crime that happens within the street level criminals, the seedy underbelly. While marijuana does nothing more than simply kill some brain cells (scientifically proven), other drugs have far more dire consequences. I disagree that marijuana is a gateway drug. I used to smoke it. That was in 1991. I have no desire to partake anymore, but I do not judge people for their recreational activities. Regarding the legality of guns vs drugs, I agree. Drug use gone wrong is primarily self-harming. That being said, the rate of gun-related suicide is astronomically higher than gun-related homicide (19,329 vs 10,078). That being said, the number of deaths, accidental or intentional from drug misuse (overdose) is astronomically higher than that of gun-related deaths (41,340 vs 29,407). Statistically speaking drugs are considerably more dangerous, and have caused more fatalities, than guns."I know. "Illegalization" is not a word. Let it go. That's not the point here. I used statistics. Empirical evidence.
My reply...
"I agree with a lot of that and learned some things as well, so to save myself time I just wanna address a few things. My perspective on Marijuana being a gateway drug, I think it is, and here's why. Because a gateway, whether you walk through it or not, is still a gateway. By associating with people who smoke or sell pot, there is a better chance that you would meet somebody who does other drugs, much more a chance than someone who does no drugs. So being that you come into contact with them, the gateway is whether or not you choose to pursue this person for the other drugs they may offer. That person is still there regardless of whether you use them to get other drugs. Therefore the gateway is an option. Whether you walk through it or not. Are those statistics of drug overdose verses gun deaths including suicide? And yeah, now knowing that about the principle, if she had a gun it could be said lives could have been saved. But that is an isolated incident. The overall assumption that more guns is the answer, that if all teachers carried guns then school shootings would never happen, I still feel that is incorrect. Not only just because teachers don't make nearly enough to play hero. But because how much would you like to apply for a job as a teacher and see a box that said "are you trained with/OK with using/possessing a fire arm for protection on school property?" I'd look at that be like s***! I didn't get into this field for THAT! Dammit Jim I'm a teacher not a soldier! Lol"
"I can agree with your perspective on marijuana being a gateway drug. And it absolutely is up to the individual if they choose to purse that path. As for the statistics, those numbers include suicides for both. And I can also agree with "Dammit Jim..." I would also think twice about the position. Another option would be to use trained veterans as school security staff. They are specially trained in disarming and disabling. I personally know a myriad of veterans who would love nothing more that the opportunity to do that, for free. Not only is it financially sound for the school districts, it is also a sound decision on the safety of children. Had a trained war vet been at Sandy Hook, or Columbine, it is a reasonable conclusion that those massacres would've never occurred."Still very logical reasoning on both sides, yes?
"Ehhhh. That COULD very well be the case. But the idea of armed security guards at schools make me incredibly uncomfortable. I went on a cruise years ago, one place we went to was Cozumel in South America. They had armed guards lining the streets. Swat patrol, bullet proof vests, riot gear, the works. Just waiting for shit to kick off. Anywhere anytime. Is that really the environment we want in our elementary schools? Is it really that bad? Have we gone that far? And if the answer is yes, what the hell can we do to keep our schools looking like places of education and not the streets of Mexico? It's just a horrifying thought that those two places could look so similar. And another thought that comes to mind. If we used trained war vets for such a task, (I guess it's safe to assume there would be tests or something to prevent this, but for the sake of argument....) what about PTSD? Hypothetical situation, and a radical one at that. A bell goes off, a locker slams shut, any load noise at all. Instantly were back in Nam and Charlie's everywhere! Or say a gun man DID come into the school, gun shots are heard, army guy is ready, he's been trained for this, he sees someone coming around the corner, shoots, and it's a kid/teacher/ anyone else. Or hell, let's say it's the assailant. That's a bloody body we gotta pick up in the middle of the school day. Sure it beats 5-10 children's bloody body's. But is this really were we are as a society? I mean, if crime is so bad in our country that the best solution is armed guards in schools and every civilian with a concealed (or non concealed) weapon. It begs the question why have police officers? Seems to me that all of society sort of takes up that responsibility. Why continue to pay out of our tax dollars for Barney fife to make a living when that had been so ineffective for so long that there was no other option but to arm ALL civilians? Just some thoughts from the devils advocate. But on a serious note. How far gone are we as a nation when our schools require the same defense system as the streets of Mexico? It's a scary thought."He has a very valid point about PTSD. And the militia state appearance.
"You are absolutely right. Arming the vets would be a bad idea. Which is where their hand-to-hand training comes in. They are trained in ways we cannot begin to conceive. I apologize for not being more specific in that statement, but that was my intended implication. They are trained to identify, disarm and disable threats. And to siphon out innocents from said threats.I agree that we don't need the Mexican standoff situation. While crime is not so horrific that we need armed guards in schools, it does offer a solution to the debate of gun laws. And allows for our Second Amendment rights to not be tread upon. The brass tacks of the gun debate comes down to constitutional rights. It is more than a matter of "I like guns". It is a matter of remaining what we intrinsically are as a nation. Free. The freedom to bear arms, if we so desire. As for a police presence, that is still required because in any society, there is no utopia. There will always be errant situations that require greater force. Hence, police. But having someone trained in combat readiness at the schools prevents another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the likes. I never addressed your statement about school staff being armed. I apologize. Arming the staff would not eliminate school shootings, but it can be reasonably assumed that doing so would reduce the instances. 4 times out of 5, an assailant would think twice if he/they knew there was a likelihood of return fire. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) definitely would've. I cannot speak for Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) as it was disclosed that he was autistic. Having an autistic granddaughter myself, that is world unto itself that even science cannot understand yet."Matt and I, as you can see, do not agree on everything. But, I do believe I shed some light on some statistics for him. And hopefully for you, too. He helped me understand his point of view. Quite succinctly. That being said, you may wonder the point of this blog post. It's to prove that just because we disagree, we don't have to be rabid wolves, ready to tear each others' jugular out because we disagree. We may not always agree. We may thing we have nothing in common. But we do. We're all human beings. And as such, shouldn't we all just be able to sit down and say "Okay. You're opinion is different than mine, but that's okay. We'll just have to agree to disagree". Do you have any idea how many wars may have been averted by that statement? Neither do I.
