A fair amount of time has passed since the "Tuscon Tragedy", and the New York Times is no longer completely saturated with stories and editorials regarding the incident. So while I may seem to be a bit late in posting on the issue, bear in mind that I have been giving myself ample time to reflect and become sufficiently informed.
My interest in this topic isn't aimed at discussing our country's increasingly violent political climate, nor is it to discuss Sarah Palin's crosshair debate that garnered such an outcry from the media. The former isn't convincing to a cynic like me that believe that we always have had and always will have dangerous political extremists. That being said, the increase of scale and scope in such extremists' actions is concerning (check out Paul Krugman's column "Climate of Hate". On a side note, he's one of my favorite columnists for the NYTimes) The latter point isn't even worth discussion in my opinion; Sarah Palin was in NO WAY directly responsible for the shooting. Were her actions tasteless? Yes, but it's something I'd expect from this dreadfully ignorant woman.
Instead, the issue that I think merits the most attention is gun control and our current gun-related policies.
Let me start with a few simple disclaimers: I, like most democrats, am not trying to rip away our right to bear arms. Not being "pro-gun" does not mean that one is immediately "anti-gun". This assumption is so commonly made and done so ignorantly (just like if a democrat doesn't support the war, it apparently means they don't support our soldiers). If you would've asked me even four years ago, I would've adamantly shared a very anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-NRA stance (although I admit, I still DESPISE the NRA). However, I've changed. First off, upon reading Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, my attitude towards hunting drastically changed, as did my view on the food industry in general. Also, as many of you know, I dated a hunting fanatic for two years who was quite the gun-loving guy. During this relationship I came to embarrassingly admit two things; one, I actually found target shooting kind of fun, and two, I liked the taste of venison. (Although lets be clear, at no point during my two year infatuation with this man did I EVER envision a deer head on my wall, not did I ever plan on actually shooting an animal. I made him well aware that there was no chance in hell either of those two things would happen.
But I digress. Back to Tuscan.
As we all know, the gunman was tackled when reloading. Unfortunately, the damage had already been dome. Why is this noteworthy? Because the gunman's weapon of choice, a Glock 19, semiautomatic handgun, held an oversized 33 round clip, making him capable of firing more than one shot per second, killing six, without pause or hesitation. His eventual pause to reload after his clip emptied allowed two rather heroic citizens to restrain him. If he hadn't had such a weapon, he surely would have still kill or wounded at least one person, but would the results have been as devastating as they were? The media has pointed out that this particular weapon is not made for hunting, or even for protection purposes. Instead, it's used to do the most amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. If that is so, why is there a place in our society for a weapon capable of mass murder? And why does the average citizen have a right to have such a weapon? Only a couple states have banned large-capacity ammunition magazines. Most states do not regulate or limit magazine capacities. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's terrifying.
The second thing that upsets me is that Jared Loughner even was able to legally obtain a weapon at all. As the media has shown, Loughner had many previous problems that should have been seen as red-flags. Luckily, most states require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon (although Arizona, Alaska and Vermont do not). However this is not sufficient. Clearly reform needs to happen with our screening process. Obtaining a gun should be a lengthy process. It should be thorough, and we shouldn't be placing guns in the hands of people that are clearly mentally instable (which, many who knew Loughner have attested to). This will surely increase costs of purchasing firearms, but isn't that a fair price to pay for at least a little more security and peace of mind?
I went to the grocery store last night. I walked in and imagined how scary it would be if someone opened fire right then and there. We live in a great country, but we all deserve to feel safe. We need to know that our government is working to try to limit such tragedies from happening, and that means we need to stop blaming this incident on our current issues of political polarization, and instead objectively look at and adjust our gun policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment