Some thoughts probably worth what you're paying for 'em re: the Buffalo massacre:
These
events can no longer be considered isolated anomalies. While precise
predictions about where and when are elusive, there can no longer be a question
that such events occur, and they occur with regularity.
And each one of them brings a call for tighter, more enforceable regulation along with a companion assertion that guns are not the problem, that there's a host of issues that are the true causes, and that guns are simply a tool.
Meanwhile, it doesn't take a lot of focused awareness to know that sometime in the next few weeks, all of us are going to, yet again, hear of another "mass shooting," with a mass shooting being defined by some measuring authority as any shooting in which more than a specific number--I think that it's four--of persons become casualties. 'Nuff said about that for now.
A
couple of weeks ago, someone sent me a survey. I get lots of surveys, and they
represent the gamut of the ideological spectrum. Some come from the Southern
Poverty Law Center while others come from Judicial Watch, and there are
numerous others coming from every stripe of organization in between. Most of
'em go straight to the circular file under my desk.
A couple of weeks ago, though, I received one from an organization that I knew to be sympathetic with advocacy for "gun rights." One of the first questions on the survey asked, "Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment saves lives?" My initial thought was, "What kind of a loaded, crazy question is that?"
But after a few minutes, I thought that it might deserve an answer, mostly because it was difficult for me to draw a line of sight between the 2nd Amendment and saving lives, if only because I don't think that that's the purpose of the amendment.
And after thinking about it, I answered the question with as much resonance as possible, "NO!" This was still fresh in my memory as I learned of events in Buffalo.
A little background. I grew up with guns. There were always about a dozen rifles in the gun cabinet which was always a fixture in our living room. There were usually a few pistols to round out our household armory. We lived in a rural area. Learning to shoot was part of my growing up...and I was taught to shoot safely.
When I was twelve, I had earned enough confidence that I was allowed to take a 22 caliber rifle by myself out to hunt "ground squirrels." My family environment always included hunting.
As I became an adult, for reasons that I've never spent much time analyzing, I lost interest in hunting and firearms. It wasn't any philosophical or moral objection; I just lost interest. I have siblings and siblings-in-law who love hunting, and they do so very conscious of the responsibilities that go with the sport.
And I support them in that interest. I've always been an advocate for allowing people to continue to enjoy various activities which involve firearms possession and ownership.
But then these Buffalo type incidents keep happening...and the "debate" goes on. And the debate is uniquely American. Yes, there are mass shootings in other countries, but they do not occur on such a frequency or scale as they do in our country.
And strangely, most other countries don't have a 2nd Amendment or its equivalent. It's an American thing. And the ongoing, contentious debate seems to have driven the status of the 2nd Amendment and all that is ascribed to it to a level of untouchable, unassailable sanctity.
We're reminded (in my opinion, falsely) that any erosion of the most loosely associated interpretations of the 2nd Amendment constitutes the beginning of the end of our valuable and vaunted freedoms.
I think that it's time that we get real.
I have a friend who is emigrating to Panama. Recently, he related that upon sharing his plans, he's often asked whether he will feel safe in such a place. His answer: "Buffalo, Milwaukee? C'mon!"
Mary and I love travel, and we've been blessed to travel in a variety of places outside the U.S. But we live next to Tacoma, Washington where there is at least one shooting...every....single....day. And too many of those shootings result in deaths.
When we travel outside the U.S., considerations for the possibility of getting shot are not high on our agenda....but in this day in our local environment, one does consider carefully what kind of driving behavior might trigger a road rage incident that'll get you shot.
The point of all this is that I think that there's a legitimate question about our priorities.
On the one hand, we have a national situation of increasingly frequent mass murder while on the other we have a perceived possibility of erosion of freedom at the mere mention of anything remotely suggesting the tightening of the regulation of availability of firearms.
The balance between mass killings on one hand and the perception of loss of freedom associated with firearms is, IMHO, out of kilter. A bunch of people going to the store in Buffalo, New York probably aren't terribly concerned with the freedoms afforded them by the 2nd Amendment. Freedom's great....unless you're dead.
Time
to get real, folks.
And, finally, if you're scratching your head this morning and wondering what the heck happened with yesterday's election, the story in the link may give you some insights.
Heck, you may have even seen some examples mentioned in the story during this campaign and while going to the polls yesterday.
Living With The Far-Right Insurgency In Idaho | HuffPost Latest News
Hold each other up, and make it a great Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment