The “Economist” thinks I’m an “idiot”
December 22, 2012 § 2 Comments
The puzzling thing to me in the past week or so is how our collective gun revulsion is clouding our thinking. As I stated in an earlier post, I share some of this revulsion but I wonder how burying our heads in the sand will actually solve anything. There is an excellent (and long winded) blog post here that goes into details about guns and how our collective “heads in the sand” approach may not work. Collective ignorance may even make things worse.
And, then when Hollywood chimes in, even more confusion seems to reign. In the YouTube video “Demand a Plan to End Gun Violence” the same celebrities (some, not all) that use guns, murder and death as a vehicle of entertainment demand action of some sort. Here’s the take-away from the video: Murders are bad. Does this mean they pledge to not glorify it as entertainment?
The Economist’s editorial “Newtown’s horror” refers to any American that questions where all the lemmings are going as an “idiot” and an “anti-American bigot”. This honestly makes me want to cancel my subscription [I may just wait for it to expire] because I question their slip lately from rational thought. It’s hard to even know where to begin a discussion with someone who starts and ends a discussion with a statement like, “Without guns, there would be no gun related deaths” but won’t think honestly or rationally about how we get there from where we are today.
This leads back to our collective gun revulsion. Guns are scary. They have one purpose and that is to kill. However, the cars that we drive day to day are more likely to kill us but they have other primary purposes, like transportation. We don’t have a collective revulsion to them because we use them all the time. Banning cars would be easier to enforce (easier to spot) and would be more likely to save more lives, but it’s admittedly a silly idea. I’m not even sure where I’m going with this thought, but I’ll try to relate this to guns: banning guns (I’d wager there are a heck of a lot more than 300 million in America) is hard to enforce (hard to spot), may not directly correlate to more lives saved, but is somehow a *good* idea?
Due to our collective (and I’ll posit: irrational) gun revulsion, even some of our own law makers won’t listen to opposing points of view. Californian Senator Diane Feinstein admitted to not listening to the entire NRA press event made by NRA president Wayne LaPierre, which baffles me. Instead, we focused on protesters that hung signs that said nonsensically, “NRA – killing our kids” and “NRA – blood on your hands” because these statements are somehow rational?
I propose that we each take a training course in firearm safety. It may scare the heck out of some, but we’d have a better understanding of what we’re talking about. It’s called “information” and it can come in handy. Interestingly, I have actually been to a shooting range where I was allowed to fire a Glock 9mm hand gun without knowing what the hell I was doing. I assumed it was best to point the weapon down range at all times, but no one taught me that. The training I received in first person shooter video games allowed me to place my rounds in center mass without ever having fired a weapon. This is sorta like letting me take a car out on the freeway just by watching what I’ve seen in movies. Do we allow/encourage that?