This morning I saw the transcript of a Piers Morgan's "interview" (read: demoralization) of Larry Pratt, the Executive Director for Gun Owners of America. I have also seen pro-gun rumblings, no longer stifled by the fog of tragedy, reappear on social media and in conversation. In yet another attempt to continue entertaining alternative perspectives on gun control, I read, listened and thought deeply about the overarching opinions that these comments and conversations yielded. And if I understand correctly, people are slowly and quietly standing back up about their right to privately pack heat for self-defense.
Now some have taken a milder approach, alluding to situations where average citizens have successfully protected themselves and their families from criminals by employing a hand gun or average magazine rifle. And in all honesty, as much as I would love to see fire arms eradicated from private ownership for good and forever, I accept that individuals want, and sometimes need, their smaller, yet still powerful guns by their sides. To be clear, I still see the blatant risk for these guns being out on the streets, as even when owned for the sake of self-defense, these weapons can end up in the wrong hands. And even with their lower bullet-firing capacity, they can still be used by criminals to wrongfully kill innocent people. But I am also aware that owning a gun is not just a source of pride or the signature of a potential criminal, but is oftentimes the one thing that helps a parent sleep soundly at night - the one thing capable of saving lives in otherwise lethal situations. Even with the many economical arguments made about the lack of a correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, as humans this notion simply makes sense.
Yet, what has disturbed me about the pro-gun rumblings that have loudened in the past day or two, are those people who refuse to see the value in at least minimizing the level of fire power in the guns that are available to the general public. There are people in powerful places who are blinded by principles and precedents – the right to bear arms, the right to protect ourselves from crime and tyranny – and thus cannot see that we are in a world where the results of political decision-making are conditional. That sweeping statements and bold, un-caveated bills no longer work because there's no such thing as self-moderation anymore in this world embattled by extremes. And while we trust ourselves not to walk into an elementary school with powerful, military-grade, high magazine guns that were purchased legally for recreational shooting and self-defense, can we really trust each other? If recent history – and by that I mean 2012 alone – is any indication, then the answer is a resounding "no."
Which is why we must meet half-way. There has to be a compromise where people can practice their 2nd amendment rights, but be limited to arms of a lesser degree. Arms that will work to stop an intruder, protect against an attacker and – as much as it pains me to say – kill your Thanksgiving turkey fresh from the prairie all by yourself. But not ones that are capable of taking dozens of lives in a matter of minutes. Not ones that are so quick and so powerful that they are used by our military to kill insurgents and would render anyone faced with their barrels incapacitated long before they could draw their own gun in self-defense.
I hope those who lean more "pro-gun" can see that eliminating everyone's access to these high magazine assault weapons will only help even the balance of power in the citizen vs. criminal scenario they so vehemently fear. Because I believe the majority of people out there, as much as it pains their moral consciences, agree that in many cases there's no time to wait for a policeman or to wield a more conventional weapon to protect against an attacker. The inability for those brave, selfless teachers and administrators at Sandy Hook Elementary to stop the gunman with their bare hands is all of the proof we should need.
No comments:
Post a Comment