At age 53 there isn’t much that I haven’t thought about or analyzed, but every once in a while a new twist comes into play and I’ll have to relook at an issue.  Currently I’m relooking at my opinion on “gun control”.  In the past, I’ve never had a strong opinion on this either way, but if you were to push me, I would have said guns are just yucky and dangerous, they scare me, so if we have gun control I wouldn’t be “unhappy” about it.  Then I listened to Piers Morgan and he started to tick me off!  He calls guests names that have a different opinion than him, he cuts them off when they’re making a valid argument, maybe it’s not an opinion changer, but I’d like the opportunity to hear it and make my own mind up without his censorship or his ridiculous commentary!  If I was ever for gun control that little British twit is changing my mind.

            Let’s take a logical look at this issue.  So one side of the argument is; First, our constitution allows citizens to bear arms to guard against future government tyranny of its people.  Second, it also says people have a right to defend their being against an intruder, and their personal being against harm.  In theory I can agree with this.  We must also analyze real risk against perceived risk.  In America, how much risk is there that our Government will become tyrannical against the people using weapons such as guns and things known in war?  I don’t see that in my lifetime, but it “could” happen at some point I guess.  All governments fail at some point in time, sometimes turning against its own people, so maybe the writers of the constitution were aware of this historical pattern.

        However, the writers of the constitution were totally unaware of future technology, not only weaponry, but medicine as well.   I went to a pulmonologist a few weeks ago and the nurse got a pen and paper and took a deep breath and said; “Ok, now let’s go over your medications”. I said; “I don’t take any”. She replied, “None”!? I said; “Nope”! She replied; “I don’t remember the last time I had a patient in here on no meds”.   The government doesn’t need guns in today’s reality if they ever want to be tyrannical, all they have to do is convince everyone they’re sick and need something then put something in our prescription drugs!  Maybe they already started, but that’s a topic for another blog.  Guns won’t do us any good if we’re all brainwashed into needing prescriptions and the government controls those drugs!

             Of course it appears we have become a violent and intolerant society.  We are hooked on material goods and need 2 incomes to fill those desires (assuming we have a partner).  Our children are being raised by daycare, head start, public schools and latch key programs where they have to pass through metal detectors from a very young age as if they were born criminals.  They are shown tolerance and respect, rather than acceptance and unconditional love, which I believe, only a family can imitate, demonstrate or bestow on their child.  These programs can try, but if that child isn’t around family enough (they need quality as well as quantity time) to experience this genuine love and acceptance, then they won’t experience it in the larger community even when it’s there.  Now throw weapons in that environment.

            If our government realizes this social reality and wanted to do us harm, all they would have to do is placate us and allow us guns – we’ll kill one another and ourselves.  It would appear that that’s the Government’s current plan, but that belongs in that other blog too.

            The other argument is; even if the above societal issues are true, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”!  If government takes away semi-automatic assault weapons, and does nothing to address the societal issues that incentivizes people to commit these violent acts, then they will find another way to commit deadly acts.  Notice how Piers Morgan touts that Britain has a ridiculously low number of deaths by guns, but he cuts his guess off when I believe they are attempting to explain that although deaths by guns are very low, the overall death rate by violent acts is up.  Piers attempts to argue that being blown away by a semi-automatic is somehow worse than dying by being torched, killed by a knife or bludgeoned to death.  Whether done in groups or one by one, if the facts are that Britain’s death rate by violence is the same, or higher, then what’s the difference?  Dead is dead!

            In the case of death by violence remaining the same, fewer guns is just a “feel good” approach by government, but doesn’t solve the underlying issues that cause all violence, whatever the means.  It doesn’t even put a band aide on the problem.  It’s still there, just in a more palatable form.

            What is my conclusion?  I believe in our constitution, so unless we amend it, we should abide by it.  That being said, I’m not too concerned about the government raising arms against its people.  If the government so desired, they could have far more subtle ways of committing tyranny against us without even our awareness, then flagrantly using guns on us.  On the other hand, if we amended the constitution to have fewer guns, I wouldn’t mind.  Whether than making an absolute decision on more or less gun control, I would much rather put my energy into solving the many underlying issues that lead people to commit violent acts.  That’s the real issue!  If we solve violence, the gun issue will be a non-issue!