subgenius wrote:seems like the issue is not one of guns but rather one of school security...one of access.
why not invest in security personnel, controlled access, and effective solutions?....to assume the threat is always from a gun simply allows for knives, spears, and sticks.
Interestingly enough, last week in China a man stabbed 22 people in a school...and no one died.
With respect to the argument that we need more security guards, more access control, etc.: So we spend millions of dollars for security guards at a time when we don't have enough money for schools. The next time the shooter will go to a playground. Now of course the problem will be that we don't have enough armed personnel at the playground...or the YMCA, or the Sikh Temple, the movie theater, the shopping mall, bowling alley, recreation center, or, or, or....
What is happening is that the
right to bear arms is slowly morphing into the
obligation to bear arms. What other civilized Western Democracy would accept that as the status quo?
More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
The current N.R.A. president David Keane has a son serving a 10 year prison sentence. In a road rage incident, his son fired a gun at another motorist.
What if the other motorist had a gun? Then David Keane's son could be dead in a legitimate act of self-defense.
At some point you have to recognize that pouring more gasoline on the fire is not going to make it go out.
The idea used to be that guns were for hunting or self protection in the home. The argument has now become that guns are to be carried and allowed in more and more places. Guns are not for last-ditch self-defense, but now 'stand your ground' makes the possibility of shooting a kid with skittles and a can of iced tea, or
playing music too loud. Are we safer? When does the 2nd Amendment Trump 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', the raison d'etre of the Constitution?
As someone observed, guns are not bio-degradable. They are not going to to away tomorrow if we pass stricter gun control laws, don't expect to see immediate benefits. But if you go on a diet, tomorrow you'll still be fat. It might take some time.
And the problem is most certainly not all guns. In a secular society, not based on religion or ethnic identity, what is the glue that will bind us together? Where do we derive a sense of community? How do we create better markers for mental health risks?
One of the most prescient films every made is
Network, Paddy Chayevsky's clairvoyant script about a fictional television network whose network news in sinking in the ratings. The veteran anchorman is fired, but announces on the air that he plans to kill himself on his last show. That serendipitous event sends his ratings soaring, and a programmer stumbles on violent reality TV programming as a was to boost ratings. The film's (anti) heroine, Diana Christensen, says "The American people are turning sullen. They've been clobbered on all sides by Vietnam, Watergate, the inflation, the depression; they've turned off, shot up, and they've f____d themselves limp, and nothing helps." She sees violent reality TV has a way "To articulate the Public Rage". The suicidal news anchor is recast as a modern-day Jeremiah, (amazingly like Glenn Beck). Eventually he is killed on the air by a group of radicals financed by the network (killed because of poor ratings).
Reality TV, angry Jeremiahs replacing journalists, all driven by a society fueled by inarticulated rage, all forecast 35 years ago: Amazing.
I think this too, is an important part of the equations. We are becoming an over-stimulated and, conversely, desensitized society. We need to look at that, too.