let's talk gun control
alabama town stunned by gunman's terrifying ride
McLendon began his killing spree a dozen miles from Samson in Kinston in Coffee County, where he burned down the home he shared with his mother, killing her. It ended about an hour later with him taking his own life after a shootout with police in nearby Geneva at Reliable Metals, where he worked until 2003.
In between, he gunned down four relatives and the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a local sheriff's deputy on a wide front porch that looks like so many others in Samson. He then turned his gun next door and killed his 74-year-old grandmother and sent panicked bystanders fleeing and ducking behind cars.
McLendon then drove off, spraying bullets through the town lined with old brick buildings, killing three more bystanders.
this happened a little too close to home for my tastes. i feel that with adequate gun-control laws, the likelihood of it happening would have been significantly reduced if not altogether eliminated. why does a part of american culture seem to idolize and romanticize guns? it's sick and creepy to me.
more importantly, why do we keep listening to gun-rights activists but turn a blind eye when things like this happen? can't we at least give gun control a chance? it works very well in other countries. i know this isn't other countries, but i wish we would give it a try before we bash it. if it doesn't significantly decrease the occurence of tragedies like this, then i'll fully admit i was wrong, and we can go back to how things were.
as i see it, owning a gun is not your constitutional right. and quite frankly, if it were, it should be taken away regardless. you have no right owning a firearm for any reason* unless you are a police offer or member of the armed forces (i.e. a part of that selectively ignored "well-armed militia" section of the constitutional right to bear arms). even then, you should only have access to a gun while actually on the job.
gun-rights activists say that guns don't shoot people -- people do. well, the thing is, people can't shoot people without guns. that's pretty common sense to me, and i take that trite slogan as an insult to my intelligence.
gun-rights activists say that people will get guns anyway if they were illegal. murder is illegal, but people do it regardless. should we legalize it because it happens anyway? besides, people would have a harder time getting guns if there were as many black-market firearm busts as drug busts. plus, if the punishment and chances of getting caught with a gun were sufficiently high, the ones that got caught would be locked away, and wiser individuals would think twice.
gun-rights activists say that knives or other weapons would be used if there were no guns. that's true, but a knife can't easily deal as much damage as an assault rifle. you can't aim at somebody with a knife from a distance and stab them with it. you can't open fire and kill several people in the span of a minute with a knife. if you can, that knife needs to be taken away from you too.
gun-rights activists say that guns can be used in self-defense. that's very true, but unless you are being threatened with one, there are other, better methods of self-defense than firearms. if an attacker is in close range, you could any combination of a knife, mace, your wits, or physical self-defense tactics. even if the bad guy is significantly stronger than you, he could still deal more damage than you even if you had a gun, especially if he had one too or took yours.
this is how i see the self-defense argument: say you're babysitting two little kids. one starts crying because the other is beating him with a hollow plastic teeball bat. what do you do? do you give him another plastic bat and tell him to defend himself, or do you take the original bat away from the perpetrator?
gun-rights activists even say that if everybody had a gun then people would be too scared to use them in malice. however, if someone is psychotic enough to go to a suicidal shooting rampage, then he is not going to care that other people also have guns and can shoot him back. should we also give everybody nuclear bombs and assume that because everyone has one that nuclear war will never happen? and is such a culture of fear really necessary in the first place?
*the only exception i can see to this is hunting rifles. even those should be heavily regulated, and owning one should require taking a safety class, passing an exam, and going through an extensive background check. they should also be taxed to fully pay for the firearm safety classes, exams, regulation, and any burden on the healthcare system they place. plus, having so much as a misdermeanor or DUI under your belt should take your right to hunting rifles away. and if you live in a city or densely populated area, forget it.
Current Mood:  sad
| 
amused but kinda creeped out
kitty with a cup of coffee
content