A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up a post on the raging debate on guns and gun control. Part of my diatribe at the time concerned how both sides of the debate stake out extreme positions and neither side is willing to listen to the other. Over the intervening few weeks, this has not changed. If anything, both sides have grown more vocal on the issue. And, as I have pointed out previously multiple times on this blog on another controversial issue - racism - neither side is immune to being guilty of arrogance, ignorance or outright stupidity in their handling of the issue.
Last week, I responded via Twitter to a comment made by a New York Times journalist who commented that "responsible" gun owners support new gun control legislation. My response was something along the lines of "it seems that 'responsible' is a subjective term when it comes to your views on gun control". The journalist did not respond back but a few of his other followers did. While I tried to rationally clarify my point on "responsible" gun owners, they spent their time stating that I was an idiot, a gun-lover, a redneck, a hillbilly and worse. (I will simply state here that I am none of those things.) In other words, I got "trolled".
Granted, trying to engage in a serious debate on Twitter probably isn't the smartest move because of the inherent limitations of that medium but I found it curious that people who are arguing for gun control should be so full of vitriol and, in hindsight, I hope that they are not gun owners themselves because they were terribly angry at me for what I felt were very reasonable comments. To me, it seems similar to my issues with Democrats when it comes to their claims about diversity and minorities - they believe in it so long as those diverse minorities support them, otherwise they are race traitors (for lack of a better general term). But there is a perception that those who support gun control are the more peaceful people but this seems to be a farce based on those comments.
This is not to say that the opposite does not occur with those who support the right to own guns trolling and antagonizing those who oppose them but they are rightly called out for it when it occurs. However, it seems that the criticism for such actions is one-sided. Just because gun control advocates are perpetrated as being more peaceful and reasonable does not hold it to be true. Now it is time to hold gun control advocates to the same level of criticism as proponents when they act like idiots.
I am ever the eternal optimist...
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Guns
Since the massacre of 20 children and 6 adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a few weeks ago, there has been a great deal of howling on both sides of the debate as it pertains to guns and gun control. Those who advocate for gun control are, in many cases, calling for an outright ban on weapons and most particularly assault weapons. Those who oppose gun control argue that it is a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy to impose such a ban and that it will be more harmful to the citizens in the long-term.
Unfortunately, both sides talk at each other and neither side is particularly inclined to listen to the other as they are both deeply entrenched in their views. The result is a failure to find any progress toward resolving the problem. Making things worse, of course, is when people go to extremes to make their views known. The Journal News, a newspaper in New York, is one such example of going to extremes. The paper set off a firestorm of criticism when it published an interactive map of all registered gun owners in several counties in New York. The paper then defended itself from criticism by stating that it felt it was important to share information about gun permits with its readers, indicating that it wanted to provide even more information. As if printing the names and addresses of people without their permission simply because they have gun permits (it did NOT address whether they even had guns!) was not enough?
No, what the paper did was cross a line. While the information was available via a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, it did not need to be - and should not have been - published by the paper. In spite of their professed desire to make information about gun permits known to the general public, they instead set off a furor about the rights of individuals to keep their personal information, well, personal. Instead, they attempted to frame citizens with legal gun permits as criminals. How is it relevant to "out" people with gun permits because the very act of doing so then renders them as perceived future lunatics and criminals who will all want to go out and shoot up their local malls and schools - in spite of the overwhelming odds against such? What happened in Newtown was a tragedy and some serious introspection is due by the nation as a whole but when one side attempts to paint with a wide brush all they do is tarnish their own arguments and render it impossible to look at the issue rationally.
And, just to be fair, Wayne LaPierre is equally guilty of such when he makes arguments that we should arm the schools? Currently, there are many schools that do have armed security on site and, while the school in Newtown did not, that does not necessarily mean that the tragedy would have been averted if armed security had been there. But the idea of having armed guards at elementary schools is not one that is really reasonable, either. After all, it's one thing to see the number of television shows and movies with wanton violence (guns and otherwise) for children, it's another to see them at school which is intended to be more of a nurturing and protective (not protected) environment.
There is a great deal more that I can say here about the idea of gun control but I do not want to get into arguments with people who are unwilling to listen. Instead, the main point here is that demonizing those who have philosophical differences with you will not solve the problem. Subtly criminalizing them when they have done nothing wrong nor illegal (such as The Journal News did) is more reminiscent of making Jews wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany than the freedom purported to exist in the United States.
Unfortunately, both sides talk at each other and neither side is particularly inclined to listen to the other as they are both deeply entrenched in their views. The result is a failure to find any progress toward resolving the problem. Making things worse, of course, is when people go to extremes to make their views known. The Journal News, a newspaper in New York, is one such example of going to extremes. The paper set off a firestorm of criticism when it published an interactive map of all registered gun owners in several counties in New York. The paper then defended itself from criticism by stating that it felt it was important to share information about gun permits with its readers, indicating that it wanted to provide even more information. As if printing the names and addresses of people without their permission simply because they have gun permits (it did NOT address whether they even had guns!) was not enough?
No, what the paper did was cross a line. While the information was available via a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, it did not need to be - and should not have been - published by the paper. In spite of their professed desire to make information about gun permits known to the general public, they instead set off a furor about the rights of individuals to keep their personal information, well, personal. Instead, they attempted to frame citizens with legal gun permits as criminals. How is it relevant to "out" people with gun permits because the very act of doing so then renders them as perceived future lunatics and criminals who will all want to go out and shoot up their local malls and schools - in spite of the overwhelming odds against such? What happened in Newtown was a tragedy and some serious introspection is due by the nation as a whole but when one side attempts to paint with a wide brush all they do is tarnish their own arguments and render it impossible to look at the issue rationally.
And, just to be fair, Wayne LaPierre is equally guilty of such when he makes arguments that we should arm the schools? Currently, there are many schools that do have armed security on site and, while the school in Newtown did not, that does not necessarily mean that the tragedy would have been averted if armed security had been there. But the idea of having armed guards at elementary schools is not one that is really reasonable, either. After all, it's one thing to see the number of television shows and movies with wanton violence (guns and otherwise) for children, it's another to see them at school which is intended to be more of a nurturing and protective (not protected) environment.
There is a great deal more that I can say here about the idea of gun control but I do not want to get into arguments with people who are unwilling to listen. Instead, the main point here is that demonizing those who have philosophical differences with you will not solve the problem. Subtly criminalizing them when they have done nothing wrong nor illegal (such as The Journal News did) is more reminiscent of making Jews wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany than the freedom purported to exist in the United States.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
A quick thought on gun control gone awry
Saw this article about a woman who apparently was trying to check in her loaded gun (for which she had a permit in her home state) when she realized she shouldn't have it and, instead of trying to help her figure out where to keep it, the police promptly arrested her. I hope for her sake (not to mention the increasingly embattled second amendment) that the charges are dismissed once she has her day in court. But it does make me question where common sense has gone in this world.
As a funny aside, I'm sure those who know me would laugh at that last statement since common sense has never been one of my strong suits. But hey, even I can recognize it sometimes... :-)
Back to the topic at hand, though, surely someone would have understood when the woman asked where she could check in her loaded pistol that she was not trying to do anything wrong but instead to follow the posted rules. There could have been a conversation to explain the laws in New York forbade the possession of such gun and arrangements could have been made to resolve the issue without arresting her. Instead, they took the route of "the letter of the law" and arrested a tourist for illegally possessing a gun in the state (or site, the article isn't entirely clear on this fact). Technically, they were right to do so. But I can imagine this will only make the state and its law enforcement look autocratic at best - or like Seattle's.
Should people have guns at the Sept 11 memorial - maybe not the smartest move on her part. But I can understand accidents. I've been known to have my little Swiss army knife on me when entering theme parks or other areas where it's not permitted and they have simply asked me to turn it in and I can retrieve it on my way back out. I hope we are not reaching the point where "security" (and yes, I use that term very loosely) is overriding all other concerns (like common sense).
As a funny aside, I'm sure those who know me would laugh at that last statement since common sense has never been one of my strong suits. But hey, even I can recognize it sometimes... :-)
Back to the topic at hand, though, surely someone would have understood when the woman asked where she could check in her loaded pistol that she was not trying to do anything wrong but instead to follow the posted rules. There could have been a conversation to explain the laws in New York forbade the possession of such gun and arrangements could have been made to resolve the issue without arresting her. Instead, they took the route of "the letter of the law" and arrested a tourist for illegally possessing a gun in the state (or site, the article isn't entirely clear on this fact). Technically, they were right to do so. But I can imagine this will only make the state and its law enforcement look autocratic at best - or like Seattle's.
Should people have guns at the Sept 11 memorial - maybe not the smartest move on her part. But I can understand accidents. I've been known to have my little Swiss army knife on me when entering theme parks or other areas where it's not permitted and they have simply asked me to turn it in and I can retrieve it on my way back out. I hope we are not reaching the point where "security" (and yes, I use that term very loosely) is overriding all other concerns (like common sense).
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Grateful Citizen
I was thinking yesterday about how grateful I am to be a citizen of the United States of America. But, being me, I wanted to determine for exactly what I was so grateful. As it turns out, I am grateful for things that may not seem to go together. But it is a crazy patchwork of things that has made this country not just survive, but thrive, in the manner that it has for more than 200 years. Granted, that is a short time in the relative history of many other nations but a sign of the dynamism and wonder that is this nation.
So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):
The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.
It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.
(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)
So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):
- The right to bear arms (the right, not the obligation)
- The right to freedom of speech (and the right to suffer the consequences accordingly)
- The freedom of the press to monitor the actions of both the government and the people (admittedly, I am an NPR - National Public Radio - fan)
The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.
It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.
(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)