Monday, December 17, 2012

Rant #866: My Two Cents For Something That Makes No Sense

Honestly, I wasn't going to write about this topic.

With few exceptions, I have tried to keep it light here, because I know that for some of you, this is the first thing that you read in the morning.

But I can keep silent no longer.

That tragedy in Connecticut is bothering me, bothering me big time.

How a human being can go into a school and shoot innocent people is just mind boggling.

And to have children being the main crux of his anger is beyond my comprehension.

But what really, truly riles me about the whole, unfortunate incident is the availability to guns that this madman had.

Can someone please explain to me why his mother had a stash of artillery like she had?

Was she planning for her own World War III?

Believe me, I am not blaming her for her own death, but why keep these types of guns in your dwelling?

The word is that she was a collector, and one who enjoyed target practice as a hobby. She took her children with her when she went off shooting, and the kids learned how to shoot guns during these excursions. I have heard mixed reports about this too, but whatever the case, she seemed to be a collector.

OK, I can buy that. To each his own.

But the collector part is the part of this that I cannot understand.

Sure, she collected guns, including a semi-automatic rifle.

But do you collect the ammunition for these rifles too?

And do you have enough rounds of ammo in your possession to take on an entire army?

The shooter had so many rounds of ammo on him that honestly, the destruction could have been even worse.

He knew how to put together to magazines, tape them together so that when one ran out, the other would kick in.

Why did the mother keep such a large amount of ammunition in her house?

Yes, her guns were obtained legally. She had permits for them.

But this is a hobby?

This is not like collecting records or comic books or stamps or dolls.

This is a hobby that can be potentially highly destructive in the hands of a wrong person.

She might have had everything locked away, but her son knew how to get to the guns and the ammunition, so what was the sense?

Two things that we do know that were proven once again by this incident is that, like a lethal oil and vinegar combination, guns and mental illness do not mix. Ever.

The kid was sick, the mother may have been too. Put guns and ammunition in the hands of these people, and you don't know what you are going to get.

The President said that he will see to it that things like this never happen again.

That is a rough thing to do. Even with laws in place, people who want to kill are going to set about doing it, because to them, laws mean nothing.

But if he truly wants to do something about this, then he must start at ground zero, and by that I mean the very access point that guns are distributed.

Regular citizens should not own guns, period. Not as a hobby, not as a recreation, never.

But we know that is not going to happen.

So if someone wants to own a gun legally, only certain guns should be made legal for regular citizens to own.

Certainly not any of the guns that were involved in this incident.

And the ammo should also be registered, one bullet at a time, with ID numbers, and numbers printed right on the bullets. This way, it would be easier to trace them.

Maybe that is already being done, but if it is, more has to be done to trace both the guns and the ammo, from point of purchase to eventual use.

Sure, this won't remove the problem entirely, but it will show that we are trying to do something about the problem of guns.

Maybe I am overly sensitive to this subject. My sister was very friendly with a guy who, several years ago, went into a local gun shop, bought a rifle, went into a nearby hotel, and blew his head off. He suffered from schizophrenia. I remember the parents' anguish.

Years later, my son's friend, a son of a New York City police officer, got into his father's gun case, played with a gun, it went off, and he killed himself. That one made national news, and I remember the funeral. It is hard for 10 year olds to bear such a situation, and my son barely did. It was horrible, to say the least.

So in conclusion, yes, there is more to come out of this case than what we have already heard. We all know that.

But the availability of guns, even legally, and the availability of ammunition to feed those guns, must be lessened at the initial point.

This is the only way to do it, although admittedly, you know as well as I do, if you want a gun, you are going to get it, whether legally or illegally.

The right to bear arms ... why?

(There will be no Rant tomorrow, as I have to go to the eye doctor for a checkup. Speak to you Wednesday.)

1 comment:

  1. I do agree with you concerning assault weapons only. I am a believer in the Constitution and support it wholeheartedly. In the Constitution, under the 2nd Amendment, it states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    The argument, for many years, was what did this statement mean, specifically, what did it protect? Is it protecting State rights in forming militias, or is it protecting individual rights in ownership, possession and transportation of weapons? Recently (2008) the courts started siding with the individual rights side of the debate. An example would be Washington DC, where all weapons were banned, only for the Supreme court to declare it unconstitutional because it infringed on individual rights to possess and carry a gun. That decision changed everything.

    That said, there are regulations, or controls on who can own and possess a gun. There are regulations for the transport of weapons over State lines. I have no complaints with these regulations. As an owner of a semi-automatic pistol (M1911 Colt .45) to protect the occupants of my home, I have no issue with following regulations.

    But regular citizens should never be allowed to own an assault rifle. There is no need. It is too much. It should only be allowed for Law Enforcement.

    So, guns should be made available, legally, to all citizens of the United States who qualify. The Constitution protects the right to bear arms. Why not?

    Let's just take assault weapons off the list.

    Porfiris Porfiriadis



yasmin lawsuit