|
1. i have no idea how even you, mojo, can possibly confuse the possession of a gun with any particular mental state, "Free thinking" or otherwise. unless you assume that there really is something magical about a gun.
2. i have no idea how even you, mojo, can support this bill (presented above in outline, one which i hope is cartoon-like in relation to the actual bill)....
how does the nra "logic" work here?
how are laws that prevent people from escalating worrisome situations in public areas into shootouts laws that work "in favor of criminals"?
i would have thought that such laws might work in favor of innocent bystanders who might get mowed down by bullets sprayed from the guns of all parties involved: the one on the defensive, ambushed, nervous, pulling out the gun to "defend" himself, the aggressor, also armed, starting to shoot.
i expect that there will be some response along the lines of "a well trained citizen would not in situations of near panic mow down innocent by standers by mistake while defending hims/herself in a public space" but i would think that position to be kinda nuts.
one thing i have figured out in gun discussion is that much depends upon where you happen to live.
i live in a city.
anything that makes it easier than it already is to make tenuous situations into murderous ones seems to me a bad bad idea. but i also understand that the general relation to guns for someone who lives in an urban space is different than the general relation you might find elsewhere.
the most volatile situations that i run into with any frequency happen outside bars full of college-age people after last call on the weekend. everybody is fucked up--some folk appear to have been unsuccessful in finding another willing to participate in mating rituals----they get pissy about---often so do the friends. bad things happen on teh street outside these places--lots of fights, lots of threats, lots of threatening to dangerous situations (dimies as fuel)----it would seem to be that this bill would open the possibility that such situations, which are often quite scary as they are now, would also be the source of potential gunfire from "law-abiding citizens" who understand themselves as being threatened.
i dont know about you, mojo, but this possibility--or anything like it--would make me feel far less safe than any number of situations that now unfold.
unless you think there is something magical about a gun--that it can make the drunken fool a sober wise man, for example.
maybe you could argue that a responsible gun owner would not go to such a bar strapped. but it seems to me that would be worth about the breath you would expend on saying it aloud.
the assumption seems to be rural/suburban life in that you are in cars more often than not, maybe. so maybe from that kind of viewpoint, even the specific situation i outlined above would not occur often.
but again, i live in a city.
i do not see any rationale for this that would not negatively impact those of us who also live in cities.
it seems to me that this bill would nudge urban situations toward actually being what local news often presents them as being to their largely suburban viewers--following the logic of if it bleeds it leads--spaces of deadly chaos.
i do not believe there is anything magic about guns.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|