more news coverage of the school shooting in Connecticut, I tuned into The Rachel Maddow Show and learned stuff I think we all need to understand.
Apparently, it is possible for someone who wishes to have a semi-automatic weapon to make one at home if they have a 3-D printer. I'm not sure I fully understand what I'm talking about, but the person prints the part otherwise controlled by legislative bans and adds this item to parts of other guns. This is possibly incorrect, and if I get clarification, I'll correct this statement. But the fact that it does happen and will continue to happen is pretty damn important.
Yes, the shooter in Ct had guns available in his home and didn't have to go looking for guns. And lots of people have guns in their homes and can use them at will. But sometimes persons who wish to do harm, wreak havoc and destruction will seek guns from sellers.
If they don't have to buy the gun, it may be much to simple for them to acquire powerful and dangerous weapons outside legal purview.
I am for gun control. I don't want all guns banned; I think people who use guns for legitimate sport should be able to have legally acquired guns. I hope they use them appropriately. The few folk I know who own and use guns are sane, reliable and responsible. They don't want to harm others; they want to be able to shoot in safe environments and they wish to be able to defend themselves if justified.
I think the 'if justified' may be in question in shootings such as the young Florida man who was killed by the person claiming a neighborhood watch purpose of pursuing the young man walking down the street.
I think the right for one person to shoot a weapon should not mean that the next person's life is at risk. Written law cannot compensate for all crazy acts people may commit; but laws that control weapons unnecessary and out of place on our streets and in our neighborhoods might help reduce the killings.
I don't understand why someone who wishes to hunt during legal periods, or shoot in appropriate settings for sport need to have assault weapons. Why will controlling assault weapons negatively impact anyone's second amendment rights?
It's just too terrible, too serious to allow any single private interest to override the need to protect life. There isn't any argument for gun rights that can justify the loss of life in Ct last week. Or in any setting in which innocent people who were going about their lives in reasonable ways but were killed by gun-wielding persons who set out to harm others.
It is not okay; it has to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment