In light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut, one thing that has been put on the table is the need to work with and better serve those with mental illness, as it is mental illness, (the theory goes) not guns that are to blame for the mass shootings of late and thus the problem, not assault weapons. As I see it there are several problems with this approach. Though it is true that we do not do enough to help those with mental illnesses in many ways it comes down to the same problems we have with all public health problems, assessment of the illness, and access to resources that they need.
To deal with the first is not an easy task. With all of the stigma that still surrounds mental illness, it makes those who need help less inclined to seek the help they need, as they may be labeled inappropriately by those who do not understand and as such, not treated the same way by their peers as if they did not seek this help out.
In the past, I have sought out help for depression, but when I told my peers about it, I was treated as if there was something wrong with me. This extends to the idea that people should just be happy all the time, which is simply an unrealistic ideal to live up to, and as such when people do not, there is stigma about why we can not do it. That being said and with this social stigma it is hard to expect people to seek it out help without being labeled, which does keep some people away from seeking the help they need when they need it.
When it comes to access to resources this is one of public policy and access to public health. To be fair, not everyone has access to health insurance, as well as not all mental health issues being covered by insurance. In an ideal world, if you were feeling depressed, there would be access to help for you so that you could work through it. No stigma, just go get the help you need. If you can't afford it, as in this case it comes down to a public good question, you should have the help you need and have that covered by the public as it is good for all of us. Of course this has it's down side too. With the push back for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) it has been made perfectly clear that everyone having insurance is not something that is a priority for everyone, and if they could they would keep it from taking effect since it is mandatory.
So the question to me becomes, where do we draw the line between helping the common good and getting people the help that they need, making it accepted as a society to get this help, thus encouraging the people in our lives who need it to seek it out, and as a society agreeing that this is so important that we are willing to help pay for it. What we know for sure is that something has to change, be it gun laws or the giving of those who need it the help that they need, and the only way to do that is for us, as a community to agree that we need to do something to fix it, and thus do all we can to make things better for ourselves and our future generations.
Jordan R. Hinckley
December 19th 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Gun Control
A few years back, for Halloween I bought a trucker style hat that said "Gun control is hitting what you aim at." Though funny, and a great addition to my redneck costume for that year, that seems to lay at the heart of the issues that all of the recent shootings are coming from. Though it is a question of over simplicity and I understand that, there seem to be 2 sides of the issue. On one hand it is argued that assault rifles and other weapons have no place in the civilian life of our modern 1st world country. On the other is the argument that no one is safe anymore and as such anyone should be able to get any weapon that they choose, and that this will be the end of things and make all of us safer.
While I am trying to see both sides, I think that there are interesting points to each. On one hand, I feel that if people carried more openly it could have it's benefits, people would see just who was carrying weapons and what they were. on the other hand it also has the potential to lead to a culture which thrives on intimidation and bullying as if you do not have a weapon, it could be assumed that you would have to be polite or nice to anyone who was carrying as at any point they could get mad and shoot you or make you do whatever they wanted at the threat of your life if you do not. This creates a world of have and have not's and makes more and more people not only want to own a gun, but to own the biggest and meanest one out there so that you can't be pushed around. This world, as I see it would be one of fear, where you do not feel safe leaving your home as anyone at any time could pull a gun on you.
This also has another problem as I see it, not everyone, (Myself included) is a good marksmen. In that case if someone like me did have to use a pistol in a bad situation, I cannot guarantee that I would be safer as if I missed and they knew it, I may become the next victim. The other thing I fear in it is the fact that we live in a world where peoples fuses are getting shorter and shorter, and as a result of it, shootings could become more prevalent when people get mad, are cut off in traffic or feel somehow slighted. Part of this, I think is a result of us living closer and closer to each other and there being more and more of us. Traffic is bad since we are all trying to get to the same places as quickly as possible. That being said little mistakes like missing a turn off on the freeway or not being let in when trying to merge makes people crazy. In this world of everyone has a gun, mistakes will happen. Not to mention if not properly handled and locked, I would also imagine an uptick of children killing each other on accident as the distinction between a toy and a deadly weapon is blurred as things become less and less clear to them as a result of the new normal.
In this case, I would say having those with anger problems or sensibility issues would put the rest of us in danger if they were the ones behind the weapons and not those with a sensible mind and who could or would keep a calm head when needed.
On the other hand, in a world where no one has a gun, those who want to harm others would find means for it. We have seen rental trucks, and airplanes used to kill thousands, and none of them needed a gun to do it. There was also a time before modern rifles, pistols etc, when people were still killing each other in the streets, thus the reason that duels were outlawed in cities. If someone really wants to kill someone else they will find a way no matter how they do it, guns are just an easy thing to blame as they are relatively easy to obtain, and you do not need a lot of skill to use one well. (I just have not fired one enough to be honest about my marksmanship) That pared with the fact that you can kill someone at a distance and as such reduce the risk to yourself in doing it means that anyone without good training can kill anyone else if they want to with them where as they may have little chance in a close quarters fight.
Also in a world without guns, where they are illegal, some people would still have them, and use them, and those who really want them would find a way to get them. This is true of guns as it is anything else that is illegal. If people want it, they will find a way to get it if it is to be had. Obviously some things are not possible to get at this point. If I wanted a piece of rock from Mars, it would be a lot harder to get it, but that is not the point. Many drugs are illegal, but people get them all the time, people sell them, and some people get caught and do time for either part of it. There is no reason to think that this would not be the case with firearms, if someone wanted it, for a price they could get them from other people who had them, made them or whatever.
So what is the answer? To me it is a balance. No, I do not want everyone, training or not, to have a gun, some would not feel comfortable with it, and still more would have no idea what to do with it if they had it. So that is not a good idea for everyone. Nor do I want people who would take that weapon and turn it into a weapon of tyranny, by abusing the rights of others for their own rights. Any time you take someone else's rights away with no provocation you are doing the wrong thing even if it is for the "Right" reasons. Because of that though, how do you take the right of someone who enjoys shooting away? To be honest we live in a world where we do things that we do not want to for the common good. If I could not pay taxes but still get the benefit why would I not? but some things we have to loose so that we work as a community. If you like to kill people, then it is frowned on in our society, and you are (in theory at least) going to be caught and prosecuted. Like killing small animals for fun? It depend on the Animal, when and how, but some things are accepted like hunting rabbits, others like killing dogs are not. That is part of living in the society that we do with the social contracts we have, some things you just do not do, and are frowned on if not prosecuted as a result of it.
So where does that put us? To me, the only use of a fully automatic rifle is to shoot a lot really fast. Assault weapons, the only use is to shoot targets rapidly or to kill or hurt someone. There is nothing wrong with that but you have to be honest about it. We do not allow people to own missile launchers for a similar reason. So to me, those weapons are not needed for your own defense, and definitely not needed to hunt, as they are a good way to waste a lot of meat when you take an animal down by shooting through a lot of it. They are not likely then needed for home defense or hunting, just my 2 cents. Where does that leave other weapons? that is something that as a community, cities, county's, states, and countries need to decide. To me, there is no point in having Nuclear weapons for example, but we have to decide that together and decide what is reasonable and good for all of us, not just for a few, while protecting the rights of the minority, since that is one thing we cannot overlook and without which does make us a tyrant nation. But most of all we need to talk about it, and not just sweep things under the rug as something that can't be discussed since it is unpopular or could make some people uncomfortable, some things need to be talked about so we can decide what works best, as uncomfortable as that is. One thing is for sure we need to talk about it, because when the next shooting happens, if we do nothing we have done a disservice to those who are hurt and killed in it if we do nothing.
While I am trying to see both sides, I think that there are interesting points to each. On one hand, I feel that if people carried more openly it could have it's benefits, people would see just who was carrying weapons and what they were. on the other hand it also has the potential to lead to a culture which thrives on intimidation and bullying as if you do not have a weapon, it could be assumed that you would have to be polite or nice to anyone who was carrying as at any point they could get mad and shoot you or make you do whatever they wanted at the threat of your life if you do not. This creates a world of have and have not's and makes more and more people not only want to own a gun, but to own the biggest and meanest one out there so that you can't be pushed around. This world, as I see it would be one of fear, where you do not feel safe leaving your home as anyone at any time could pull a gun on you.
This also has another problem as I see it, not everyone, (Myself included) is a good marksmen. In that case if someone like me did have to use a pistol in a bad situation, I cannot guarantee that I would be safer as if I missed and they knew it, I may become the next victim. The other thing I fear in it is the fact that we live in a world where peoples fuses are getting shorter and shorter, and as a result of it, shootings could become more prevalent when people get mad, are cut off in traffic or feel somehow slighted. Part of this, I think is a result of us living closer and closer to each other and there being more and more of us. Traffic is bad since we are all trying to get to the same places as quickly as possible. That being said little mistakes like missing a turn off on the freeway or not being let in when trying to merge makes people crazy. In this world of everyone has a gun, mistakes will happen. Not to mention if not properly handled and locked, I would also imagine an uptick of children killing each other on accident as the distinction between a toy and a deadly weapon is blurred as things become less and less clear to them as a result of the new normal.
In this case, I would say having those with anger problems or sensibility issues would put the rest of us in danger if they were the ones behind the weapons and not those with a sensible mind and who could or would keep a calm head when needed.
On the other hand, in a world where no one has a gun, those who want to harm others would find means for it. We have seen rental trucks, and airplanes used to kill thousands, and none of them needed a gun to do it. There was also a time before modern rifles, pistols etc, when people were still killing each other in the streets, thus the reason that duels were outlawed in cities. If someone really wants to kill someone else they will find a way no matter how they do it, guns are just an easy thing to blame as they are relatively easy to obtain, and you do not need a lot of skill to use one well. (I just have not fired one enough to be honest about my marksmanship) That pared with the fact that you can kill someone at a distance and as such reduce the risk to yourself in doing it means that anyone without good training can kill anyone else if they want to with them where as they may have little chance in a close quarters fight.
Also in a world without guns, where they are illegal, some people would still have them, and use them, and those who really want them would find a way to get them. This is true of guns as it is anything else that is illegal. If people want it, they will find a way to get it if it is to be had. Obviously some things are not possible to get at this point. If I wanted a piece of rock from Mars, it would be a lot harder to get it, but that is not the point. Many drugs are illegal, but people get them all the time, people sell them, and some people get caught and do time for either part of it. There is no reason to think that this would not be the case with firearms, if someone wanted it, for a price they could get them from other people who had them, made them or whatever.
So what is the answer? To me it is a balance. No, I do not want everyone, training or not, to have a gun, some would not feel comfortable with it, and still more would have no idea what to do with it if they had it. So that is not a good idea for everyone. Nor do I want people who would take that weapon and turn it into a weapon of tyranny, by abusing the rights of others for their own rights. Any time you take someone else's rights away with no provocation you are doing the wrong thing even if it is for the "Right" reasons. Because of that though, how do you take the right of someone who enjoys shooting away? To be honest we live in a world where we do things that we do not want to for the common good. If I could not pay taxes but still get the benefit why would I not? but some things we have to loose so that we work as a community. If you like to kill people, then it is frowned on in our society, and you are (in theory at least) going to be caught and prosecuted. Like killing small animals for fun? It depend on the Animal, when and how, but some things are accepted like hunting rabbits, others like killing dogs are not. That is part of living in the society that we do with the social contracts we have, some things you just do not do, and are frowned on if not prosecuted as a result of it.
So where does that put us? To me, the only use of a fully automatic rifle is to shoot a lot really fast. Assault weapons, the only use is to shoot targets rapidly or to kill or hurt someone. There is nothing wrong with that but you have to be honest about it. We do not allow people to own missile launchers for a similar reason. So to me, those weapons are not needed for your own defense, and definitely not needed to hunt, as they are a good way to waste a lot of meat when you take an animal down by shooting through a lot of it. They are not likely then needed for home defense or hunting, just my 2 cents. Where does that leave other weapons? that is something that as a community, cities, county's, states, and countries need to decide. To me, there is no point in having Nuclear weapons for example, but we have to decide that together and decide what is reasonable and good for all of us, not just for a few, while protecting the rights of the minority, since that is one thing we cannot overlook and without which does make us a tyrant nation. But most of all we need to talk about it, and not just sweep things under the rug as something that can't be discussed since it is unpopular or could make some people uncomfortable, some things need to be talked about so we can decide what works best, as uncomfortable as that is. One thing is for sure we need to talk about it, because when the next shooting happens, if we do nothing we have done a disservice to those who are hurt and killed in it if we do nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)