More on guns

A recent Public Post on Facebook by Josh Fielder. I consider this reasonable.

To his statements, I would like to add the following.

The way we will finally get something done with regard to public policy on guns and gun violence is when reasonable responsible gun owners "take point" in this debate.

In addition to the usual but important topics like the size of ammunition magazines and assault rifles, background checks, etc., I would also like to hear something about gun manufacturers who, in my opinion, have skated under the radar in all of this.  Because most Americans who are not hunters or otherwise members of gun culture do not see advertisements on their television screens, they are likely unaware of the agressive and glamorized marketing of military style weapons. Also, I would like to hear about significantly higher taxes on firearms and ammunition. This should be specifically applied to dealing with the social costs resulting from the improper use of firearms. We think nothing of taxing the heck out of cigarettes largely because they come with a big social cost. It is clear that firearms are often used by responsible people who have no intention of breaking any law but asking them to bear some of the cost of the social negatives is well within reason.

Finally, what I would like to hear from the gun-huggers is- the truth about why they so desperately want to own these weapons. My interpretation of the truth: gun-huggers value the testosterone thrill of shooting these powerful guns more highly than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

As a public service, I provide my definition of gun-hugger.

A gun hugger is distinguished from a sane reasonable responsible gun owner by the following factors: 

Gun-huggers (as stated above) value the testosterone thrill of shooting these powerful guns more highly than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

Gun-huggers are likely to have more guns than the average gun owner by factors of three, four, five, or more. They have no reality based need for so many weapons. However, the sheer number often appears to correlate to their personal paranoia level.

Gun-huggers live in a dream world where the government is always about two minutes from sending their agents to gun owners homes to rob them of their freedom, their guns, and their right to fill their heads with right-wing radio 24/7. Furthermore, if their paranoia alone were not sufficiently high on the batshit crazy scale, they also operate under the laughable notion that their personal arsenal will protect them from that vividly imagined fateful day when agents show up at the door.

While we are all here and presumably paying attention, let me clear this up for any stray gun-hugger who may have wandered here. If the local sheriff or patrolman shows up at your door with a warrant or whatever, you may overpower that person. However, I can assure you that, the next iteration in this scenario will not go so well for you. In case you have failed to stay abreast of the facts regarding the personnel and firepower of your government, you may want to brush up on some facts before putting your faith in this course of action.

And, oh by the way... the following is on a personal note. If you own more weapons than Sylvester Stallone's character used in his latest action movie, perhaps, you may have slipped a gear and begun to fancy yourself as a character in one of these movies. If you feel this may apply to you but you fail to see how such behavior is a problem, well, that is a real problem.  Normal cultural behavior includes watching a movie or television show and engaging in a "willing suspension of disbelief". Failing to re-engage ones disbelief is not considered normal. Granted, this is only one interpretation but feel free to roll it around in your cranium just for shits and giggles.

Sitting this one out

Why I do not plan to march for Trayvon.

Let me answer the obvious question first. Don’t you care about this poor young man who was needlessly and tragically killed? First, for all those who thought this, thanks for starting out by imagining that I am a heartless piece of crap. Now to my answer. Yes, I am saddened by yet another tragic victim of gun violence on the streets of my country.

Now, I have a question for all of you. What about the little eleven year old girl who was shot in the face by a stray bullet in Asbury Park, NJ the week before Trayvon? (note: Her name was withheld by news reports because she was a minor. See link below) Why weren’t all of you at the march for her? Let me help you with this as I already know the answer. There was no march for little “Betty” (I will call her this so that she is humanized for this little rant. I feel it is the least we could do for her.) Why was there no protest or march? Who can say? Wasn’t her life as valuable? I can only say that for whatever reason, Americans decided not to get all spun-up about that particular victim of gun violence. One mention on the news and done. Should we be surprised? Not really. This is the most common way that we Americans respond to these crimes.

“Oh, my god! A little girl was shot in the face. That’s so sad.” Then we have a latte.

I will offer my fellow citizens more credit than many of you were willing to extend to me at the beginning of my rant. I do not think Americans are heartless or unsympathetic. All tolled, I find the people of this country to be mostly decent kind folks. They simply look about at their environment and feel a bit helpless and overwhelmed. I can scarcely blame them. The problems are immense. Even the smartest among us would have a difficult time finding an edge on which to begin chipping.

Back to the reason I don’t plan to march for Trayvon. Stated in the simplest terms, I don’t trust the “chain of events” to be pure. That is to say, I think something bad happened and people quickly jumped to exactly the scenario they wanted it to be about. For some folks in Florida, that means, young black male equals trouble. It was all probably justified. Notice I didn’t say, for some “white” folks in Florida. Can you guess why? Let me make this perfectly clear. For any number of well-to-do black people in Florida, a young black male (with a subtext of ‘poor’) is considered with the same suspicion as he is by many white folks. Ouch. But, seriously, you didn’t see that coming? The other side has no better claim to fame. Many immediately saw it as a white person basically executing a young black man on mere suspicion alone.

The other reason I don’t see myself marching for Trayvon is because I think there is a chance that all the protests will make it more difficult to arrive at a clear answer followed by clear justice. Prior to the point at which the Prosecutor was focused on the case, yes, there was some reason to press the system. Now, I think pressuring the system is more likely to induce error than justice.

Finally, I suspect that there is more than a small chance for more violence to result directly or indirectly from the protests. If you doubt this, google the whole Spike Lee/Trayvon fiasco. Then ask the folks whose address he mistakenly tweeted to his many followers as the address of Mr. Zimmerman. Oh, that's right you can't ask them because they felt a need to flee their home in mortal fear.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57405929-501465/spike-lee-retweets-incorrect-address-of-george-zimmerman-violates-twitter-rules/

Little Betty who was shot in the face.