Again and again we hear the mantra … “Guns don’t kill people … people kill people.” And often someone will add … “Guns are inanimate objects; they just lay there until someone picks one up and uses it.”
And while there is some merit to this reasoning, one cannot help but wonder … what if the gun were not there to pick up and use?
As I’ve stated before, I have no problem with responsible gun-owners who use their guns to hunt, target shoot, skeet shoot, collect, etc.
But where do we draw the line? How do we know the person who walks into the gun store to buy a gun is a “responsible” individual?
Background checks help. Waiting periods help. BUT, neither one seems to stop the senseless GUN KILLINGS that continue to affect our nation.
What’s the answer? Do we take away all the guns as other countries have done? I think most people would agree this will never happen in the U.S., primarily because of the Second Amendment, but also because the gun-loving populace (and the NRA lobbyists) would never let it happen.
Some have suggested more stringent gun-buying requirements, similar to car purchases. Others have suggested, at the very least, eliminating the availability of assault weapons (but what about those who already have them?). Still others have pushed for more and better mental health services.
Of course, the common response is that no matter what restrictions are placed on guns and/or gun purchases … the “criminals” will still be able to get and use a gun for their nefarious purposes. And unfortunately, there is much truth to this.
So what do we do? Do we continue to fight over this issue while our children and other innocent family members and friends lose their lives in unprovoked and senseless killings?
Below is a suggestion made by “The Other 98%” on Facebook. While it addresses the abortion issue as well (and is obviously tongue-in-cheek), I feel there is some merit behind the message as related to guns.
I bring this issue to the forefront of my blog because I live in Oregon, not too far from the Roseburg massacre. I did not know any of the killed or injured, but the proximity of the incident definitely has had an effect in our community.
I think we can all agree … there are no easy answers. But answers are something we urgently need to find. And soon.
P.S. I just came across this article. Unfortunately, nothing has changed.
Nan's Notebook 
“So, Guns Are Now Allowed At The Houston Zoo…”
The same group has since forced the Ft. Worth Zoo to allow guns, and is now attacking the one in Dallas. In my mind, a tragedy is imminent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great post. I personally want to own a nuclear missile. Why? Because it will look nice in my apartment, and the 2nd Amendment gives me the RIGHT to KEEP and bare arms. It doesn’t specify which arms I can and can’t keep, so I want a nuke. Also, now this is important, so pay attention, kids, nuclear missiles don’t kill people, people kill people. What harm is there in me having a nuke if I promise not to use it? (Well, I promise not to use it as long as the people across the street don’t MAKE me use it. The noisy bastards.) Nukes can’t friggin’ just up ‘n launch themselves, can they? Only PEOPLE can launch a nuke. Dammit! I want one. I’m responsible, most days, and, well, I don’t even know how to launch a nuke, so how dangerous could it be for me to have one?
P.S. I wish the next ten times psychos want to shoot up a place they choose to shoot up NRA meetings and NRA lobbyists. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the blood spilled from guns didn’t come from churches, grade schools, high schools and colleges and came instead from the douche bags who scream about “People kill people, not guns”, we’d get some stricter gun control in America. I’m sick of watching innocent people die because impotent assholes need guns to replace their deflated dicks and sissified egos. Anyway, I’m off to shop for nukes. Have a pleasant day, and please, if someone threatens you, shoot the bastard in the head. It’ll make ya feel good. 🙂 $Amen$
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yeah … why don’t they pick on the people that matter? Like the NRA groups/supporters? That would solve a hellava lot of problems!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wouldn’t it, though? What songs would the NRA sing if they were the constant victims of this crap? Hmm.
LikeLike
Get your nukes my friend, the world is going bananas and the crazies are in control
LikeLike
LOL! That reminded me of a comic book I did for school art, titled: Don’t Leave Home Without a Thermonuclear Devise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are so many guns out there already, that changes to laws will have little impact in the short term, but I believe in their long term ability to impact gun violence. The idea that laws make no difference is flawed, because there would be no point to any laws if that was the case. In a culture of fear, guns are the only antidote to give you the illusion of power against the threats that everyday politicians and the media would like you to think you are facing. Even though the very act of owning a gun increases your likelihood that the gun will be used to kill someone, possibly yourself.
But whatever the pro-gun side would like to argue about the real reason for all this, they don’t fight for any legislation to try to change things. I just saw an article that is on Rachel Maddow’s facebook about why the pro-gun people should then be for the expansion of the ACA and medicaid to improve mental health care. And it’s exactly right. Whatever one’s solution is to the problem, it is a problem, and outside of the people who believe we should do more to restrict guns, nobody else on the other side is making an ounce of effort to fight for the things that they think are the root of the problem. And that’s where I have problem. We should all be fighting for a society in which we don’t need a gun. Such societies exist. Why aren’t we looking at this countries and understanding how their culture, their policies and their rights lead to a different outcome than what we have here?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Source: Inanimate Guns […]
LikeLike
I read someone recently (wish I had kept the link or could give credit to this person) who was responding to this argument that “No matter what you do, people are always going to be able to get ahold of a gun.”
His response was that this is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. He used an excellent example, that of drunk driving laws. Yes, it is strictly, factually true that no drunk driving laws or societal practices are going to completely 100% prevent some number of people from getting behind the wheel and killing someone. But look at how far things have come. People got good and mad (M.A.D.D.) at these senseless deaths, and we found some reasonable laws and cultural changes that measurably brought drunk driving deaths way, way down. That’s an objective statistically-proven fact.
So let’s not let the fact that there is no perfect solution stop us from making progress on this. Yes, I support people’s right to own and use firearms responsibly. But let’s implement some reasonable laws and cultural practices that will reduce the number of murders with firearms. And let’s put some serious money into enforcement (I didn’t realize until recently that one NRA tactic is to lobby Congress to reduce funds for the ATF et al to the point where they can’t even effectively carry out the legal inspection system we have now).
LikeLiked by 2 people