Another Day; Another Shooter

I just learned about a mass shooting at a school in Connecticut.

Coincidentally, two days ago, I was debating gun control on Facebook. The spark to that thread was another shooting at an Oregon mall that happened earlier in the week.

The thread was as you’d expect.  Those of us on the left think we’d be better off with increased gun control.  Those on the right side of the fence believe we have the right to own as many guns as we want and that increased gun ownership reduces the amount of murders by guns.

I can kind of follow the logic of more guns bringing down the incidents of murder by guns.  However, I can’t subscribe to it. The reason is simple: We are human.  We get passionate and we get emotional.  There is nothing wrong with that but it means that, at times, we are not thinking clearly or rationally about

The result is that we do things that we and others regret. Personal freedom doesn’t only mean that we have the freedom to do whatever we want.  It means that we can do what we want within constraints set bu laws, society, whatever.  One of those constraints, in the US and many countries is that our actions should not infringe on the rights of others.

But these kids and teachers were killed because, at a very fundamental level, the shooter was exercising his right to have weapons. Because of this right, we have arms available at the local Walmart.

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

True.  However, guns allow people to kill efficiently: quickly and en mass.  There was never a mass killing by sword, for example.  Even if someone were to attempt it, you could probably keep the guy at bay with some rocks or whatever projectile was handy. You can’t really do that against a gun.  You really need another gun to go up against that.

“If more people were armed, they could stop the shooter.”

I don’t know that, in a crowded school or mall, I want ten people shooting at one person. I mean, in a high stress situation like that, are they going to be able to correctly identify the bad guy if they all have guns?  Also, there is the risk that three out of the ten (my guess) can’t shoot straight and might hit an innocent person.

Realistically

Realistically, trying to ban guns would be like trying to ban drugs or alcohol.  But I am an optimist.  I think that we can shape policies and laws that effectively limit the availability of firearms.  In fact, I know we can do this.

However, there are many who don’t believe there should be any limit and, given our history, I don’t foresee any meaningful change in policy or laws in the near future. Part of the reason is that we have many interest groups who, rightly or wrongly, would be against additional limits.

The other part of the reason is that we have the second amendment to the Constitution.  We adhere to it and we defend that right which was written in 1791 when we lived in a largely agrarian society and most of us hunted for food.

Do What Makes Sense

We might want to consider using the Constitution’s ability to be amended to adjust that right for these times.

It is time we started looking at doing what makes sense and not blindly going down a path simply because it was laid out 200 years ago. The Founding Fathers were very intelligent men. They were intelligent enough to provide for amendments because they understood that they could not predict the future.  They understood that, however smart they were, future generations would be increasingly smarter.

Let’s exercise our greater intelligence to do something that makes sense.

Those people, especially the kids, did not have to die this week.

What do you think?