The horrid events a few weeks ago in Aurora Co have revived discussions on gun control, both nationally and among family and friends. Since I have never been shy about sharing my opinions I see no reason to be a wall flower on this subject.
There are numerous and serious problems in trying to solve this problem by some implementation of gun control. First off the focus is all wrong way around, looking at the tool and not the user. In an unproduced screenplay I authored quite a few years ago I had a line that I think is applicable.
“You mortals always fear the wrong things. You fear the bomb but not the soul that would use it.”
Of course the focus on the weapons in one viewpoint is simple practicality; I think the thought process is something like this. “If he could not have gotten those items (guns) then the mass murder would not have happened.” True enough, but it is also true of the automobile he drove to the theater. He couldn’t have transported that sort of arsenal by public transit, a ban on cars would effect to same results, yet this is not proposed. Despite the far high death count, very few people fear cars like they fear guns.
Besides the constitutional issues a problem with gun control is that repeatedly prohibition is policy that fails. It failed with Alcohol, it is failing with narcotics, and it will fail with arms. If there is a demand and there is a supply, there will be a trade.
Of course not everyone on that side of the argument is calling for a full prohibition, many are calling for restricting types of weapons and magazines, usually with a plead that no one needs those guns or large magazines.
Please, when is a right restricted by proving a need? After all do you really need to have the full freedom to post whatever filth, what a slippery term that is, on the internet? Wouldn’t it be better to make sure the appointment guardians had all the tools they needed to deliver our information, and the rest us live under reasonable restrictions on what we could say or publish? The argument seems less powerful when it affects your freedom.
Then there are those who seek simple licensing, you know just like cars, why is that so wrong? Well, if it was fair and not abusive it might be okay, but how many rights are you willing to surrender to permitting? You can have your abortion, provided you have a permit, would you trust your local and state government to make it fair and easy to get one of those?
But it’s only reasonable I hear people say that we require gun owners know how to safely use their weapons, to prove proficiency. Would you trust that logic applied to the franchise? That only those person who have shown themselves informed and educated are allowed to vote, after all the power of government is awesome should we trust ill-informed persons with the selection of our government? If you can see how it would be terribly abused in the franchise example, trust me the abuse potential is there in gun licensing.
That reality though is that all this is pointless because gun control has rapidly passed into the real of the impossible.
One man has already fabricated a functional gun using a 3D computer printer. These devices are becoming more common ad the prices, as it the rule with all computer tech, is dropping fast. In just a few short years people will be able to operate ‘stills’ for gun making, and freed from the constraints of legality they will make fully automatic weapons. The only hope for a reasonable market is a legal market, just like for alcohol and what we should have for drugs.
But how do we stop any more mass killings?
Truth is we never will, but the best thing we could do is to serious debate and reform our health care and mental health care systems. The fault