Not So Funny Friday

Usually I try to keep it light and humorous on Fridays, but not today.

The outrage after Sandy Hook is beginning to fade, as it often does after a big tragedy. Whether its a hurricane, earthquake, or mass shooting, the initial emotions transform into a more cerebral state. Not that the diehard anti-gun crowd has quieted, because they have not, but average Americans begin to realize that events like Sandy Hook are the result of certain societal ills and individual failings and not so much the type of weapon employed or the existence of the 2nd Amendment..

I won't offer a defense of the 2nd Amendment here. The mere fact that the Founders viewed it as important is justification enough for me. What I do want to talk about is emotion. An emotional response to events like Sandy Hook is normal for everybody. For the first day or two even my liberal friends and I agreed on a few things like there needs to be a stronger security presence at schools, the decline in male staff members makes schools appear more vulnerable, and our mental health system is less than adequate. But then the issue of gun control undoubtedly enters the conversation.

Though I disagree with the term, I will use the common reference of "assault weapon" for any semi-automatic rifle firing a centerfire cartridge with a large detachable magazine. (Although technically an assault weapon is a selective fire weapon allowing for full automatic fire, something thats been illegal for almost 80 years). Because an assault weapon was used at Sandy Hook it is the primary target of legislation, usually to ban such firearms. The problem is that the gun control crowd has not defined what they hope to accomplish. If a reduction in gun violence is the goal, then banning assault weapons will have little impact, as a vast majority of crimes involving a gun are perpetrated with a handgun. So the push for an assault weapons ban is purely an emotional response to an emotional issue, not based on any real evidence or rational thought.

I know what you're thinking, "But if it even saves one kid." Hard to argue against that. However, should we ban freedom of speech because some people use that power to incite violence and riots? Yes, I know things like hate speech are illegal but is it enforced, and where's the dividing line. My point is if we want a perfectly secure society, then we can not have freedoms and democracy. Just because one person abuses their right to free speech and it leads to a riot in which five people are killed does that mean we take away that right from millions? Because Adam Lanza used an assault weapon to murder do we then take the right to own such a weapon away from the million households who do not break the law?

Ignorance of firearms is also too prevalent in the liberal arguments for gun control and banning certain weapons. Mike Lupica, a reporter for the New York Daily News wrote, "Any fool knows that Lanza couldn't possibly have killed as many children as quickly as he did on the morning of Dec. 14 without an assault weapon in his hands." Now Mr. Lupica kind of covers his ass with the "as quickly" statement, but we know what his point is. I could have entered that school with an old lever action .30-.30, pump shotgun, or semi-automatic pistol and killed as many people in almost the same amount of time as Lanza. Mr. Lupica is the fool for thinking he, his kids, whoever is safer without assault weapons being sold at the local gun shop

Unfortunately life is tragic, the Ancient Greeks (inventors of tragedy as a literary form) recognized this. In America we so often expect to be protected from any mishap. It boils down to a simple decision: security v. freedom. We could live in a police state and no child will be killed by an assault weapon (unless it is being fired by a policeman) or we take the bad with the good and live in a situation of freedom. With freedom comes great responsibility but it has become too easy to be irresponsible in the US today.

Prudence should determine policy. Banning some ill defined classification of firearm is not prudent. Passing legislation to identify mass shooters, prevent them from obtaining any means to perpetrate mass murder, and responding quickly and forcefully to such situations would be prudent. There are no guarantees in life (I know, other than death and taxes), so schools need to evaluate what would work best for them to create a safer and secure environment.

Ok. Enough serious stuff. Here's some funnies.

 

Posted with Blogsy