Since some people drive recklessly or impaired and cause others to die, should the use of vehicles be prohibited for everyone â€" responsible motorists included?
Just because certain individuals eat too much and it leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other potentially fatal conditions, are we to assume food is to be outlawed for all?
Of course, the answer to both of those questions is a resounding NO. The rationale behind banning cars or food â€" and closing down roads, auto dealerships, restaurants and supermarkets in the process â€" would be completely ridiculous, right?
Well, then, why is there an assumption by America’s gun-control freaks that clamping down on law-abiding citizens’ right to buy firearms is the answer to tragedies such as the shooting in Arizona last weekend?
You can set your watch by it: Every time such an event occurs, these supposedly well-meaning folks come out of the woodwork and try to use it as political fodder to undermine the Second Amendment right to own guns.
Their arguments for restricting that right never seem to fly during routine times. But the advent of a tragedy somehow is used as emotional fuel to push through legislation that wouldn’t stand a chance otherwise.
Already, the Obama administration and others in Washington have kicked into gear with various gun-control proposals in light of the mass shootings in Tucson.
There is no doubt this terrible act ought to cause certain elements in our nation to spring into action with reforms, which mainly should include how society handles persons with mental disorders. There is reason to believe that it’s time to re-think the recent approach of community treatment options rather than institutionalized care.
A mental hospital is not a pleasant place. But at least there is some opportunity for patients to receive treatment rather than being loose on the streets and in a position to commit a crime like the Arizona attack.
Yet an ill-advised response to the shootings would be the passage of additional legislation that makes it harder for citizens with no history of crime OR mental difficulties to buy and possess firearms.
Of course, we’ve been down this road before, and the problem is that the gun-control freaks just don’t get it â€" “it†being the fact that a new law is not the answer to avoiding such tragedies. Their naive belief is that putting another regulation on the books will magically make the problem of violence disappear.
What they perpetually fail to consider is the idea that criminals who are not prone to obeying laws in the first place aren’t going to follow any new ones, either. As for the mentally ill, a person can be so deranged he doesn’t care if he’s committing a crime.
The only thing tighter gun-ownership restrictions do is hamper innocent people’s ability to protect themselves against those bad elements. We must remember: Our society is a big chaotic mess not because people are allowed to have guns. Homeowners are arming themselves in growing numbers as a response to that mess.
I’m sure if low-lifes suddenly stopped robbing and killing innocent people (at least we can dream), fewer folks would be taking out gun permits. Would Hitler have invaded countries such as Poland and the Netherlands knowing they would be able to adequately defend themselves?
I think one thing that CAN be done to curtail occurrences such as last Saturday’s is for the various organizations that are supposed to be protecting society to do a better job sharing information with each other. This would include databases to readily allow gun dealers to determine if a would-be purchaser has a history of mental illness as well as criminal behavior.
Some of the treatment providers are reluctant to supply information because they are obsessed with meeting ultra-strict privacy regulations authored by anal-retentive attorneys to avoid any avenue for lawsuits against them.
Rescue and law enforcement personnel in Surry County have confided to me that they face constant obstacles in their work from petty rules regarding the release of information.
The bottom line: Is it more beneficial for the populace as a whole to safeguard a potentially dangerous person’s privacy than to provide notification that might prevent him from buying a gun and going on a shooting rampage?
Mine is not a conservative or GOP viewpoint, but â€" I’d like to think â€" a common-sense one that reflects the thoughts of an unaffiliated voter who is ever-distrustful of both major political parties. I also am not a Tea Bagger, by the way.
My position on gun control should not be viewed as either a Democratic or Republican one, but an American position. See: U.S. Constitution.
