Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Guns are the Redheaded Stepchildren

Going to take a quick break here between the transcripts of the NY SAFE act to expand on a thought I had previously.

My premise is this:

I believe guns are the only legal consumer product where their misuse by a minority results in restrictions on the lawful majority.  Every.  Single.  Time.

Isn't that perverse?  Really think about that for a minute.

If a person goes to a bar, gets drunk and is driving home in a <insert car brand here>, crosses the median and smashes into a family driving home and kills them all, we don't ban <insert car brand here> type cars because they were used to kill by a  criminal.

If a person goes to a drug store, buys a pack of condoms, goes out and rapes a woman wearing one so as to not leave DNA behind, we don't ban the use of condoms by those who don't want a baby or a disease because they were used to rape by a criminal.

If a person goes to a liquor store, buys a bottle of booze, goes home, gets drunk and beats their spouse to a pulp, we don't hold the liquor store responsible and sue the maker of the brand of alcohol because of drunkeness and lack of impulse control by a criminal.

I could go on and I think you get the point.  But not so with guns!  If we applied the demands and punishments, and they are punishments against a culture that doesn't conform to a certain ideal of society, we would have the following:
  • Condom registration to track potential rapists.
  • Liquor purchasing limits and stockpiling limits to ensure abuse or damage can be limited.
  • Car operator licensing and testing to ensure safe operation.  Whoops, have that one!  How is that working out?
  • Breathalyzer locks on cars to make sure people don't drive drunk.
  • Mandated tobacco safety and danger courses including viewing an autopsy of a dead smoker so the dangers of tobacco are understood.
  • Female dress codes so as not to provide temptation to those who might assault or rape them.  After all, it is often said it is the gun's fault a criminal acted so it heinously must be the woman's fault a man lost control of his penis.  Oh, wait, that one is being done in certain countries around the world because of that exact concern!  Heaven forbid a man catches sight of a woman's ankle flesh.  Who knows what might happen?
  • A procreation permit before a couple can get pregnant to ensure they are of sound mind, gotten references that they would be good parents and gone through a State-approved parenting course.
  • A fee and a waiting period before you can publish an article in the newspaper.
  • An excise tax on computers to compensate libelled speech victims and pay for the harm they have suffered.
Ridiculous, right?!? Who would dream of such things?  Truth be told, every one of these redone as a proposed or current law in many states is precisely what gun owners have to put up with.  And if a crazy snaps and does something horrible as recent events show, they clamp just tightens and the restrictions move a notch forward.

All in the name of crime prevention, saving the children and a common sense, reasonable next, often good first, step that isn't perfect but given enough steps, it will be.

Admittedly, some products have become restricted as a result of misuse by criminals.  Most notably Sudafed and other cold medicines since they can be used to make crystal meth.  But, but, we don't restrict you from purchasing it other than limiting quantity at any given time.   Nothing stopping you from going around town.  You still have to present identification.

So I guess my outlandish list isn't so outlandish, after all.  Perhaps over time, people will simply accept this as the price of "freedom" and feel good that they've prevented <insert future tragedy here>.

Some freedom.


No comments:

Post a Comment