The Conundrum
Billvon said:
It's similar to drunk driving. Hundreds of millions of people drive in the US; a tiny fraction of those drive drunk. So why have drunk driving laws? Because those drunk drivers can do a lot of damage. Thus there are laws against drunk driving, license and registration requirements, laws that drivers have to follow etc.
And this is a part where certain disagreements
can fall away.
To wit, nobody suggests you shouldn't be obliged to caution when driving a car, because, well, a car
can kill a person.
But the idea of obligatory caution with guns? Well, guns are
designed to kill, which seems a pertinent fact. After all, sure, it was irresponsible for Darby to have a pencil in his back pocket; and it was irresponsible of me to not check that the guy I was getting into a fight with in seventh grade didn't have a pencil in his pocket. Long story short, I'm forty-one, and still have an Arco #2 pencil lead in my left thigh that my doctor won't remove unless he sees medical necessity.
And, you know, shit happens. Fuckin' A, a couple of twelve year-olds get into a fight and one of them ends up with a pencil lead in his leg. Big effin' deal. It's not that I'm particularly well hung; nor was I at the time. But, yeah, it's close enough to make me think about luck.
And that's just a fuckin'
pencil, you know? And we've heard that from the firearms lobby before. You can use a car wrong. A pencil. A telephone. You can kill someone with a kitchen knife. A box cutter. A piece of construction rebar.
The pencil was made for writing, but it's sharp and toxic, so be careful.
The car was made for transportation, but it can kill someone because, well, it weighs three thousand pounds and travels at a hundred feet a second. You can kill someone with that.
The telephone? Well, you know, just don't try to playfully bludgeon or strangle anyone with a Bell 500, you know? And be careful that you don't accidentally detach the cord and drop it off the balcony and accidentally hit someone walking three floors below.
Box cutter? Well, yeah, they weren't exactly
made for hijacking planes, but, you know, anyway, you have to be careful with them, so you don't accidentally slit someone's throat with the thing.
Rebar? Think twice before playing baseball in a ten by ten room.
A gun? Fuck it. The idea of
mandatory responsibility with a gun, so that one does not accidentally kill another, is somehow controversial.
This is the part I don't get. Caution with dangerous things? Yes. Caution with guns, which are
designed to be dangerous? No.
Don't believe me? (You never do, anyway.) Look at how they hedge when the idea of
"no accidents" is on the table.
And that is what it is, but we also have firearms advocates here arguing for
convicted stalkers to have access to guns. What in the world makes that a good idea? Because the gun people have a personal beef with the senator who introduced the bill.
Imagine that.
When you can irritate a lethal body politic by merely suggesting they be responsible with their lethality, there is a problem. When they're advocating for
more lethality in society? Well, I would say there's a problem, but some folks disagree.
It's a conundrum.