Tag Archives: gun-control

Guns + Testosterone

5 May

= mostly annoying + unsuccessful

As you read in my last post, a woman in the next apartment complex got stabbed to death while walking her dog (a pit-bull) on the lower trail just a few yards away.  Spokanistan’s big solution to the fatal stabbing on the trail along my street?  Carry a gun.

I find this logic faulty for a few reasons:

1)  The stabbing was a surprise–as most attacks are.  This dude jumped out of the bushes on a random morning and stabbed a stranger.  No motive.  No connection.  No warning.  How could an unsuspecting person, notice a threat, control their dog, get their concealed weapon out, pull the safety, aim, and shoot in time?  I suspect no amount of ammunition, protective animal, or self-defense skills could have prohibited this particular incident. . .

2)  I don’t feel like a bunch of trigger-happy, fearful, or just testosterone-driven people should be carrying around firearms at all times.  How many accidents could occur where unintentional people/animals/self was shot?  What if the thing jumping out from the bushes was an off-leash dog playing fetch?  What if it was a child running through the bushes?  And what if the gun got in the wrong hands somehow?

How many of these gun-carrying citizens take the time to learn to appropriately use the deadly weapon?  One person’s logic was–“Well of course a person who spends hundred of dollars, and a large chunk of time acquiring a gun will take lessons in how to use it!”  Not so, Sir.  If that was true every person with a car and a driver’s license would have taken Driver’s Ed or auto-shop.  And we KNOW there are a ton of bad drivers out there.  And every person with a house would learn plumbing, electrical skills, gardening, decorating, etc, etc. . .  But obviously, there is employment in all those fields for a reason–not everyone learns to do those things just because they spent money and did a lot of paperwork to buy property.  JUST because something costs a lot, and requires some hoop-jumping to get–does not mean the item is used with skill.

3) I just didn’t like the tone of the debate.  Despite the tone of this post, I am FOR gun ownership.  I think the bad guys will have weapons with or without regulation–so the good guys should be able to defend themselves if necessary.  In this, I’m thinking of having it in your house in case of an intruder.  Or using it for responsible hunting/target practicing purposes.  That said, I draw a line at ignoramuses that just seem excited to carry and discharge a weapon because they can.  Guns are not a substitute for common sense, personal responsibility, and reasonable law enforcement measures.

I believe it is not a gun that would have diverted this horrible death.  I think a greater sense of community would have done a good job.  This neighborhood has been relinquished to the homeless, addicted, and transients.  All of us see it, and no one took steps to correct the problem.  At most, people move.  No one started a neighborhood watch program.  At the very least, someone should have spread the message to new-comers that the road/trail/river are not safe (to go on alone) on this side.  Had any neighbors reported being chased the weekend earlier, said something to police about possible drug deals going down along the road, or mostly–watched out for each other, this may not have happened.  Because there is a shortage of funds for police, lack of priority by the city to clean this area up, and apathy by residents about the goings-on near our apartments and houses, someone is dead.

Abortion and Gun-Control are the SAME Issue

19 Mar

So why are the political ideologies behind both ideas opposing?

Gun Control:  Democrats are for it.  They see that guns cause unnecessary death and violence and so want to ban them entirely.

Anti-Abortion Legislation:   Republicans are for it.  They see murder of fetuses as unnecessary death and violence and so want to ban it.

Gun Control:  The republicans oppose it, because they don’t want big government regulating their every move.  Republicans want to make their own protection decisions, and do not generally advocate murder or crime.  Republicans who want to keep their guns blame individuals for gun violence–not the gun itself.  Guns don’t kill–people kill.

Anti-Abortion Legislation:  The Democrats oppose it because they don’t want big government to impede their personal rights and freedoms.  Democrats want to make their own personal child-bearing decisions, and do not advocate murder of children/babies/fetuses.  Democrats want to keep their reproductive decisions for themselves.  Sure, some individual women make poor decisions, but women’s rights as a whole are at stake.

Do you see how the issues are similar, but the party ideology is opposing?  In the advocating viewpoint, the party sees a problem of unnecessary violence and murder and wants legislation to control it.  In the opposing viewpoints, each respective party doesn’t want government intervention over individual freedom.  Really, if you oppose/support one issue, you should feel the same about the other issue.