We’re in an information-gathering stage, people. We can save the outrageous outbursts for when our esteemed congressional delegation begins to etch the start of some sort of gun law on the books.
This is a very confusing time for our country: In a short amount of time, some crackhead opened fire during a movie and another whack job opened fire in a mall commissary. Then the most heinous thing we can think of, burying children, because someone walked into an elementary school and opened fire. It’s a lot to deal with. It’s a ton to think about and trust me when I tell you it needs to be discussed.
So, the discussions will commence, but can we make an agreement to somehow keep it civil. Perhaps involve people other than the peace-loving hippies and the gun toting NRA. Seriously, can we just get some folks in the middle of the road to weigh in?
Since I have this small outlet every week, I’m going to let my voice be heard in this conversation. Maybe you already know what I’m going to say and maybe you don’t. In either case, here it goes. Let’s point out the obvious -- guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yes, it’s true, but they mostly do it with guns.
So what do you do? Here’s where all my knowledge and common sense come into play. Ready? I have no idea what to do. Yup, there you go, finally, an honest answer.
I’ve said we need more gun control and I’ve said we need more crazy control and I still believe that. But for the folks that keep posting talking points meant to sway public opinion: Just stop, you’re not helping.
For instance: More homicides are committed with baseball bats than guns. OK, not true! 2011 data shows that 67.8 percent of the people killed that year were killed with guns. "Blunt Objects," of which I would classify a baseball bat, only comprised of 3.9 percent.
With that said there are millions of responsible gun owners living in this country, and a select few (literally a handful) are dictating the way we go about our day-to-day activities. I call this the restraining order effect. Sure you can get one, but what good does it do? If someone wants to violate the order, they’re going to violate it.
Does that mean it’s not important? No. Quite to the contrary, it’s very important. But it is too cookie cutter. The same guy that has the potential to kill has to follow the same order as the guy who is just trying to visit his kids during a bitter divorce. But we need to have clarity in law, so it’s the same for everyone.
We are the land of the free and the home of the brave and I personally will charge to the front lines and defend this great nation, but until that happens I don’t need a gun, I don’t want a gun, and I don’t believe assault rifles should be allowed unless you’re in some sort of first responder capacity. Period. End of story.
But here we are, at a crossroads of taking a good long hard look at it. And we need to. We should be making preemptive strikes but we don’t. We have to wait until something horrific happens that kicks the door in on the conversation and that’s when it shouldn’t happen. It’s highly emotional.
Let’s remember for a moment how we all felt after Sept. 11; we would have gone through airports naked. Now we’re back to complaining about security measures, but it’s now that we should be taking another look and making suggestions with clarity and not emotion.
At the moment we’re having a necessary conversation during a time that offers little clarity. Meantime, all these crazies from both sides of the aisle are twisting the Constitution around to make their own arguments. Just so you know, when it was written, the weapon of the day was a muzzleloader and my guess is they had no concept of even a six-shooter.
So the conversation needs to happen, but it has to happen in real time and we have to be able to come together on this one and agree on it. What the Hell is up with that?