monsters.

I can’t fathom what people who are involved in these mass shootings are dealing with.

In truth, I pray that I never know that feeling.  That I never join the gun violence club.

What makes these people so angry that they would walk into an area and start shooting people?

I don’t know what the solution is, but if history shows us anything, simply outlawing firearms isn’t the answer.  Look at what happened during Prohibition.  If people want the guns, they will get them.  During Prohibition, people wanted alcohol.  And for the most part the average law abiding citizen followed the law.  But those who wanted the alcohol found a loophole or two to get what they wanted, didn’t they?  I am not saying that alcohol and firearms are the same thing.

News reports state that most of the weapons used in the attack in California were purchased legally.  Doesn’t make it right.

it would be irrational of me to say that we shouldn’t have a conversation about firearms.  How do we protect people from themselves and each other?  Can we do so?

How long before someone begins to question who is behind all of these seemingly random attacks?  One of the shooters in the attack in California recently visited Saudi Arabia.  Is visiting one of the middle east countries a mark of a terrorist?

In the coming weeks, months and years we will see an increase in the rhetoric used to discuss the pros and cons of stricter gun laws.  NRA will spend more money, other organizations will try to match those funds.  Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just sit at a table and discuss this rationally?

On the other hand, if everyone was acting rationally, we wouldn’t need to have the conversation in the first place, or would we?

Comments

comments

2 Responses to monsters.

  1. The problem with the “gun laws don’t prevent gun violence because people will just break the law” argument is this: people who want to commit theft bad enough are willing to break the law to do so, but nobody has ever suggested legalizing theft.