Las Vegas: another nail in the gun rights coffin?

Now that we are once again visiting the topic of gun control, sadly via the only way it seems to be acknowledged, I confess to much ignorance and indecision on the subject. On the one hand I clearly recognize the FACT that assault-type weapons (fully-automatic, semi-auto with extended magazines, etc.) have no place in the hands of the average citizen. The Second Amendment clearly states that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to protect the freedoms of the people, and I would hardly call every redneck with a pickup truck "well-regulated." These types of weapons are virtually NEVER used to great effect in instances of gun violence, where a citizen with an assault weapon stopped a criminal shooter (see this). The argument that more guns prevents gun violence is just completely absurd (see this). The argument that "criminals will get guns anyway" doesn't defend against people who are NOT criminals, but who are driven to such violence through things like bullying or mental illness. Many of these people would not end up mass shooters if guns were not readily available to them, such as their father's private collection. The defensiveness of many right-wing citizens seems to boil down to power tripping. Rethuglicans do tend to get on power trips.

On the other hand I understand the desire to be armed. I understand the concern of an amoral dictator taking control of our military and using it to capture &/or enslave the citizenry. I recognize the importance of someone other than the U.S. Armed Forces having weaponry that would give them even the slightest chance against said Forces in the event of a coup. But I have to say, I believe the military is made up of otherwise typical citizens, and, put in a situation where they are being ordered to capture or kill citizens indiscriminately (or otherwise) the majority of soldiers would use their better judgment and defy those orders. I also recognize the possibility that keeping the people armed would give these compassionate men and women an out when it came to such genocidal commands. "They were heavily armed and we had no choice but to surrender" they might say to their commanders who had instructed them to deprive innocent people of their rights. It's all very complicated, even moreso as the population increases to unmanageable numbers.

Now I find myself with a third hand. I don't know if there was asbestos in the house where I grew up, or if it was built on an ancient burial ground or something, but this deformation persists. On my third hand I feel that this population of which I speak is unnecessary and even detrimental to the existence of Earth. Basic math indicates that the more things you have, the more variety you will get among those things. So if there is a nutcase just waiting for his moment to snap for every hundred thousand people in the country, then the more people you have, the more nutcases you will have. So, while I wouldn't want to make any decision regarding who lives and who dies, I do believe that greatly reducing the world's population would greatly reduce MANY of the problems we experience. So now I come back to this, and wonder if nuclear Armageddon is the best thing that could happen to the planet. Mass destruction may be in order.

As long as there are this many people in the world, and in this country in particular, it will be very difficult (read: impossible) to get everyone on the same page and peacefully agree on a way to stop all this violence.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OPINION: What Would Bernie Do?

Music 104B Final Project

Don't call me Shirley