And I think the roots of this absurdity can be seen in how we Americans collectively respond to such an incident.
I remember a few years ago, when that earthquake hit Japan and caused the nuclear plant at Fukushima to explode, that one guy (a fan of nuclear energy) said on Facebook, something like, "Oh, great! Now this is going to charge up opponents to nuclear energy, and we are going to hear a bunch of crap from environmentalists.
There are similar things when we see crazy weather. People sigh and say that they are going to have to hear environmentalists sounding off whenever there is massive flooding along the banks of the Mississippi or, more recently, in Texas, or if there is record drought in the West, particularly California. Or, when we have a major storm that does unprecedented damage, such as was the case with Katrina and Sandy. This is not so much the case when similar stories of droughts or floods or famines or record hot or cold temperatures occur outside of American borders, because Americans barely pay attention to anything outside American border, unless it is really, really big. There is a whole world out there, and Americans constitute about 4% of the world's population. But if you reside in the United States, you know that the unstated reality inside of the country is that only what happens within America's borders matters. The only time Americans really pay attention to environmental disaster stories around the world is when they are very big, like with Japan in 2011, or the tsunami of 2004, or some other huge occurrences. I remember Bhopal and Chernobyl making big headlines for a while also, but it really take something on that scale for Americans to generally pay attention to that.
This ignorance (and there really is no other word for it) is staggering. It extends to other issues as well, including affordable, universal healthcare, and affordable childcare. These are things that could work in the United States, because they do work in other countries. But most Americans do not want to hear about that.
Of course, this ignorance extends to the issue of guns. In fact, people become particularly militant when it comes to the issue of guns. The reaction becomes particularly pronounced.
I have seen - multiple times - American gun enthusiasts react to just such a mass shooting by essentially rolling their eyes and saying, in an exasperated tone, that this would give fodder to gun control advocates. Not expressions of sympathy with the victims, or shock at the stupidity and senselessness of such an attack. But rather, frustration that their obvious point of view on gun ownership and the easy access to guns in this country will, once again, be challenged, because there was another mass shooting. I cannot imagine the mindset of a person who automatically reacts to news of such a shooting by sighing in frustration and bitching about how gun rights are constantly threatened in this country. It is almost like you are literally siding with the shooter in such incidents! Many of these same people supposedly believe in something called "family values," although it has never been clear what that exactly means. However, setting and supporting a system where our nation leads the world in gun violence and gun related deaths among industrialized nations hardly seems to me to fit the description of being friendly to families.
Chances are, you probably have seen and heard this reaction to. There are people who posted nothing about this shooting on their Facebook or Tweeter pages except how the government (particularly President Obama) is coming to get your guns, or how gun ownership is protected by the second amendment, or the most common refrain about how guns don't kill people, people kill people. Maybe that is true, but it sure makes it easier for those people to kill a large number of people when they are granted very easy access to guns, does it not?
One of the Facebook posts that I saw earlier today, which actually got me onto this topic, showed a picture of a billboard which read the following:
CAIN KILLED ABEL WITH A ROCK
It's a heart problem not a gun problem.
JEREMIAH 17:9
Yes, Cain killed Abel with a rock. But he did not kill nine people with a rock, all in one shot, because it is highly unlikely that any one individual would be able to do that much damage, so quickly, with others watching. While one person might be killing another with a rock, the eight or more gathered might try to intervene (we would hope). At the very least, they would surely run and get help.
Point is, while it is true that a rock could indeed be used as a murder weapon, it is highly unlikely that it would be used for a mass murder - particularly in attacking a whole bunch of people at one time.
What proponents of tighter gun laws have on their side are statistics, facts and history. Statistics consistently show that, the less guns you have, the less gun violence you have. Go figure. Facts show that other countries, when they have endured similar instances of mass shootings, tightened up gun laws, and history since shows that these measures were indeed successful in reducing gun violence.
Point is, while it is true that a rock could indeed be used as a murder weapon, it is highly unlikely that it would be used for a mass murder - particularly in attacking a whole bunch of people at one time.
What proponents of tighter gun laws have on their side are statistics, facts and history. Statistics consistently show that, the less guns you have, the less gun violence you have. Go figure. Facts show that other countries, when they have endured similar instances of mass shootings, tightened up gun laws, and history since shows that these measures were indeed successful in reducing gun violence.
What gun enthusiasts have on their side are arguments and opinions. They will say some absurd things. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, but it sure would be more difficult to kill as many people as that young man in South Carolina did if he did not have easy access to guns.
There are other sayings, as well. If guns kill people, then pencils fail tests. If guns kill people, then spoons and forks make people fat.
Those are almost too absurd to even respond to, but since I brought it up, let me try. The purpose of a writing utensil like a pencil is to be able to write whatever you want with it, which includes, but is not limited to, wrong answers on a test. The purpose of a kitchen utensil is to help make eating more convenient, and sometimes to stir the food, and such. If you use it excessively and gain weight as a result, that is on you.
A gun, by contrast, serves only one purpose: to kill. It could be used for hunting animals to hunt, true. But that is not the case with semiautomatic weapons, or numerous other guns that are clearly designed to kill people.
We have people comparing guns to spoons and pencils and rocks, and probably to paper and scissors somewhere, too.
But guns are not a game, and the tragedy is that so many Americans seem to think that they are.
Yes, Americans should have access to guns if they so choose. But since guns are not like pencils and spoons, because they are designed only for the purpose of killing, some sensible precautions should be taken, such as a background check. Then maybe people with a proven history of mental instability or a violent history might have a more difficult time to obtain guns.
Would this end mass shootings? Perhaps not. After all, there are almost as many guns in America as there are people, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.
And besides, there are other ways of killing a mass amount of people. Terrorists try these ways all of the time. Someone could make a home-made bomb, like terrorists often do. We have seen one such American, Timothy McVeigh, make such a bomb, and detonate it, too.
Yet, we also have Homeland Security and the NSA looking into our private emails and essentially spying on us, allegedly to protect us against such people who mean to do us harm, and most gun advocates would not object to that, I am guessing.
So why not set up some minimal parameters to ensure that people with truly disturbed minds, and people with potentially homicidal or suicidal intentions, are not able to get guns so easily as they do now?
Really, it is common sense. Most of the world understands and accepts this.
But there is one exception in the world right now on this issue. It is the American exception.
Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves, as a country, if our exception is working, or if the increasingly long track record of ill-advised loose gun legislation is indeed proving the case that tighter gun laws are in the best interests of everyone.
We have people comparing guns to spoons and pencils and rocks, and probably to paper and scissors somewhere, too.
But guns are not a game, and the tragedy is that so many Americans seem to think that they are.
Yes, Americans should have access to guns if they so choose. But since guns are not like pencils and spoons, because they are designed only for the purpose of killing, some sensible precautions should be taken, such as a background check. Then maybe people with a proven history of mental instability or a violent history might have a more difficult time to obtain guns.
Would this end mass shootings? Perhaps not. After all, there are almost as many guns in America as there are people, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.
And besides, there are other ways of killing a mass amount of people. Terrorists try these ways all of the time. Someone could make a home-made bomb, like terrorists often do. We have seen one such American, Timothy McVeigh, make such a bomb, and detonate it, too.
Yet, we also have Homeland Security and the NSA looking into our private emails and essentially spying on us, allegedly to protect us against such people who mean to do us harm, and most gun advocates would not object to that, I am guessing.
So why not set up some minimal parameters to ensure that people with truly disturbed minds, and people with potentially homicidal or suicidal intentions, are not able to get guns so easily as they do now?
Really, it is common sense. Most of the world understands and accepts this.
But there is one exception in the world right now on this issue. It is the American exception.
Perhaps it is time to ask ourselves, as a country, if our exception is working, or if the increasingly long track record of ill-advised loose gun legislation is indeed proving the case that tighter gun laws are in the best interests of everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment