A Tempered View Of A Tragic Event

It’s been awhile since the last posting but I really haven’t been able to come up with anything interesting to write about. Then, yesterday happened.

It’s interesting to see how people react to tragic news. Many are sad, shocked, or simply numb from hearing about the situation and yet others have a completely different view on things.

Mentioning the horrific event in Colorado would be fruitless simply because many of you already know what happened. But what I find disheartening is how some people can take something like that, and turn it into yet another call for their favorite cause or to bolster their standing on a given issue.

In this case, it brought the issue of guns to the forefront, where it will be till at least next Wednesday or so. Reaction across the media, beginning with social media, and then going into the traditional media later on was swift. But rather than simply talking about what happened, many people were, only hours later, using it as a calling card to advocate either for more gun rights or stricter gun control, and frankly, to use it at that point for either position is shameless.

I believe that the 2^nd amendment to the constitution guarantees the individual the right to bear arms, but I don’t advocate that position, nor do I believe in shoving my views down the throat of someone who might disagree with me. However some in the media apparently feel that any moment such as that is worthy of their bully pulpit.

Media personalities such as DL Hughley, John Leguizamo, Cher, Roger Ebert and Michael Moore took to the media yesterday to advocate for more gun control as they believed that making the right to bear arms illegal would prevent atrocities such as this. Groups such as the NRA took the opposing view that allowing people to conceal carry would prevent it. Neither position is right, or wholly true.

It is true that people who do carry on their person are able to stop horrible things from happening. Here in the last week there was a case in which an elderly man stopped a robbery at an internet café by shooting the two armed robbers who came in demanding everyone turn over their money to them. He was trained, and knew how to handle his gun so that others wouldn’t be hurt and prevented the robbery.

At the same time, gun laws exist for a reason. John Hinckley, a mentally disturbed man was able to get a gun and attempted to assassinate President Reagan in a warped attempt to win the heart of the actress Jodi Foster. Hinckley wounded Reagan, Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy, DC Police Officer Thomas Delahanty, and White House Press Secretary James Brady in the attempt. Reagan was surrounded by armed guards who were all packing and yet Hinckley was still able to make the attempt without being shot.

The nature of the attack and the severity of the wounds inflicted to all, but especially to Brady prompted the Brady Bill which was signed into law by President Clinton. It called for background checks and a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm, an action panned by the gun rights individuals but one that I think was appropriate.

However, in spite of all of that, there is one fact that I know will always remain true. If a person is sick in the head, and is bound and determined to inflict harm, pain, and death onto another person, they will find a way to do it. Outlawing guns isn’t going to solve anything, any more than making them easier to get is going to solve anything. If a person is willing to kill, and kill as the Colorado shooter did, making guns illegal isn’t going to stop them. I mean, look at how many people have problems dealing with drugs and addiction in this country even though drugs are illegal. It doesn’t solve anything.

There needs to be regulation, and that regulation should be strictly monitored to at least make it difficult for sickos to get their hands on guns. But people should also be given the resources to defend themselves.

Granted, I believe in the 2^nd amendment, and much of this post comes from that point of view. I make no bones about that. However the problem I have with both points of view can be summed up by one of the early seasons of The West Wing. In the 2^nd season, a character was introduced named Ainsley Hayes who was a Republican hired by the Democratic White House. She and the Rob Lowe character, Sam Seaborn got into a discussion about guns. Naturally, Seaborn took the antigun approach, and Hayes took the pro-gun point of view. But she said something to Seaborn that really struck home with me, and is a problem that both sides of the debate equally share.

Sam Seaborn: But for a brilliant surgical team and two centimeters of a miracle, this guy

[meaning Josh]

Sam Seaborn: is dead right now. From bullets fired from a gun bought legally. They bought guns. They loaded them. They drove from Wheeling to Rosslyn. And until they pulled the trigger, they had yet to commit a crime. I am so off the charts tired of the gun lobby tossing around terms like "personal freedom" and nobody calling them on it. It's not about personal freedom. And it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It's just that some people like guns.

Ainsley Hayes: Yes they do. But you know what’s more insidious than that? Your gun control position doesn’t have anything to do with public safety and it’s certainly not about personal freedom. It’s about; you don’t like people who do like guns. You don’t like the people. Think about that the next time you make a joke about the South.

It’s true. And it’s something that we all must come to terms with. We can disagree, and we can debate, and when we do, it’s not always one side being right or wrong. It’s possible that both sides can disagree and both be right. But when we start hating each other for what we are, we are no different than those who would do us harm for the same sick reasons.