Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/87395757.html
Kristin Hansen:There seems to be a shooting in the news every day, and not once has it been due to "a well-regulated Militia." There's a resurgence of people who are so concerned about exercising their Second Amendment rights that they have lost all perspective on what a gun actually is. It is a weapon designed for killing efficiently. It is not a fashion accessory to hang on your belt, nor is it a security blanket to make you feel safe.
A few weeks ago, gun rights activists made their point by going to Starbucks in New Berlin wearing side arms. My question is not whether this should or should not be a "right," but rather why anyone would feel it necessary to be armed in order to get a latte in an upscale suburb. For pity's sake, this isn't the Wild Wild West. Black Bart is not going to jump out and challenge you to a duel.
A Racine man recently won a judgment from the city and two police officers, who arrested him as he was sitting on his porch wearing a holstered weapon. There were complaints of shots fired, so naturally police questioned the guy with a gun. He refused to answer their questions. Again, rights aside, if you are so proud of your status as a "law-abiding citizen," why refuse to give your name? Maybe the police wouldn't have acted at all if he had cooperated in the first place.
In the news this week, I read about a man who police say was unhappy with his financial advisers in Dallas, so he shot the advisers, a father and son, and then himself. Is dissatisfaction with financial advice a reason to get angry, maybe to rant and rave and even sue? Possibly. Is it a reason to pull out a gun and shoot two people? No, it's not.
No more than five minutes after I read that story, another one broke. A disgruntled employee at Ohio State University shot two co-workers, killing one of them and then killing himself. Is conflict at work a reason to get a gun and kill people? No, it's not.
One could say that these are "isolated incidents," but when something happens every day, many times a day, is it isolated? When these "law-abiding citizens" purchased their guns, did they intend to use them to kill innocent people? Probably not, but at some point, having a gun for protection against deadly force turned to using that gun because somebody made the gun owner angry. Anger is not a reason to use a gun.
My point is this: If weapons become nothing more than lethal accessories, gun owners lose perspective on what is or is not a real reason to carry a weapon and a real reason to use a weapon. The more comfortable you are with your weapon as a daily companion, the less you are conscious of its power. Possession of guns may be legal, but carry and use of them should be rare and for good reason.
Kristin Hansen of Waukesha is a returning student at Carroll University and a nonprofit professional[my emphasis and my point]. E-mail kristinhwaukesha@gmail.com.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/87395757.html
Kristin Hansen:There seems to be a shooting in the news every day, and not once has it been due to "a well-regulated Militia." There's a resurgence of people who are so concerned about exercising their Second Amendment rights that they have lost all perspective on what a gun actually is. It is a weapon designed for killing efficiently. It is not a fashion accessory to hang on your belt, nor is it a security blanket to make you feel safe.
A few weeks ago, gun rights activists made their point by going to Starbucks in New Berlin wearing side arms. My question is not whether this should or should not be a "right," but rather why anyone would feel it necessary to be armed in order to get a latte in an upscale suburb. For pity's sake, this isn't the Wild Wild West. Black Bart is not going to jump out and challenge you to a duel.
A Racine man recently won a judgment from the city and two police officers, who arrested him as he was sitting on his porch wearing a holstered weapon. There were complaints of shots fired, so naturally police questioned the guy with a gun. He refused to answer their questions. Again, rights aside, if you are so proud of your status as a "law-abiding citizen," why refuse to give your name? Maybe the police wouldn't have acted at all if he had cooperated in the first place.
In the news this week, I read about a man who police say was unhappy with his financial advisers in Dallas, so he shot the advisers, a father and son, and then himself. Is dissatisfaction with financial advice a reason to get angry, maybe to rant and rave and even sue? Possibly. Is it a reason to pull out a gun and shoot two people? No, it's not.
No more than five minutes after I read that story, another one broke. A disgruntled employee at Ohio State University shot two co-workers, killing one of them and then killing himself. Is conflict at work a reason to get a gun and kill people? No, it's not.
One could say that these are "isolated incidents," but when something happens every day, many times a day, is it isolated? When these "law-abiding citizens" purchased their guns, did they intend to use them to kill innocent people? Probably not, but at some point, having a gun for protection against deadly force turned to using that gun because somebody made the gun owner angry. Anger is not a reason to use a gun.
My point is this: If weapons become nothing more than lethal accessories, gun owners lose perspective on what is or is not a real reason to carry a weapon and a real reason to use a weapon. The more comfortable you are with your weapon as a daily companion, the less you are conscious of its power. Possession of guns may be legal, but carry and use of them should be rare and for good reason.
Kristin Hansen of Waukesha is a returning student at Carroll University and a nonprofit professional[my emphasis and my point]. E-mail kristinhwaukesha@gmail.com.
