If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. --Socrates

Plastic Guns Or Real Ballistic Missiles: Gun Control

First Posted: Oct. 2, 2015, 6:24 p.m. CST
Last Updated: Feb. 22, 2018, 7:29 p.m. CST

I’m so clumsy I’m the last person I would trust with a gun. Those of the social darwinist school of thought proudly take the risk of owning weapons, concluding that if they haven’t shot themselves or each other yet, then they and their children must be competent enough to own weapons. And everybody else is an idiot. And that stupid is as stupid does. But just because we haven’t blown ourselves up yet doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. Delusions of grandeur aside, what is it with us ‘Mericans and our guns?

Why don’t we demand the right to own all the fun toys the military plays with every day? We’re supposed to be arming ourselves against any militia, including our own. What kind of fight would it be between our military, capable of airstrikes, and us, the people, what with our hand guns? We are clearly in a fight amongst ourselves, and ourselves only. We do not stand a chance against a foreign enemy invasion or a domestic military coup.

What about more humane weapons, like tranquilizers and taser guns? The police should be carrying those, and, heck, what if all Americans switched over to those from guns? Everybody knows that guns produce much messier damage to the site of wound infliction. Presumably the expectation of much worse damage is supposed to be a deterrent against fighting an officer with bullets, you know, the guys that come out shooting, since those inhumane wounds would be annoying to both police officers and innocent bystanders alike. It’s fighting fire with fire, and, psychologically speaking, it’s supposed to effective. But only if it’s a deterrent in the first place. Not a last-minute, ugly Mexican standoff where everybody ends up getting shot. Getting shot in the chest makes it hurt to breathe. I, for one, would prefer the taser gun.

Everybody thinks they are Superman and we all have a “let’s roll” attitude about these incidents of domestic “terrorism,” as I like to call these things. If you had a gun, you would have shot the perpetrator right before he was able to shoot somebody else, and you would have saved countless lives, all on your own. But let’s face it. From the moment an individual is allowed to conceal and carry a loaded gun, the innocent individuals within a would-be perpetrator’s sphere of influence are at his mercy. Such acts of heroism are not realistic, and the paranoia required for such split second heroic interventions are not worth the burden placed on every lay person to keep their eyes peeled like that 24-7. It’s called living in peace. Living in constant fear of danger is certainly not comfortable for me. I wouldn’t mind outsourcing it to a few good men though, those Minority Report specialists that can see it happen before it happens.

It’s called a psychological background check. Either a full evaluation should be performed before he or she is allowed to buy a weapon, or his actions should be put under the most stringent scrutiny after he or she has been given the weapons. With great power comes great responsibility. Who would have thought that owning a gun would be considered a form of great power?

This power is the ability to take the life of another. Even the state does not have carte blanche on taking the lives of convicted murderers; death row is not the easiest thing to push through. And yet we give psychologically-unknown individuals carte blanche to kill anybody they so choose in a moment of impulse?

What about self-defense, you ask? If criminals believed that the general public was disarmed, they would be less inclined to utilize their weapons because even a smaller threat should be enough against unarmed individuals. A fight is only likely when one or both parties believe that the opponent's death is the only deterrent to death of oneself. Not to mention that if less lethal weapons were owned by individuals and “burglars” alike, the expectation is not a matter of life and death, but merely a matter of a little pain and a little rudeness.

Changing burglary from a matter of life and death to a scenario of who is stronger and who is ruder is the more humane way to go. In the opposite direction it boils down to who has a bigger gun and who is the less humane individual. We’re better than that.

This article was written by Anna Condor. Anna is a personal trainer and fitness coach. She works out 6 days a week and has a biweekly blog that you can follow. Anna is currently working on a book, and is in the process of establishing a foundation to help individuals and families in developing countries without food or shelter.

Support Anna's Passion With a Donation

Some articles you might also like...


--*real *unreal
--Bill Nye
--Barack Obama
--The Jought Complex