In the light of the recent elementary school shooting in the USA, a very active discussion was held on Tumblr. I expressed my thoughts about it, and I'd like to share them here as well, because I do believe there is a huge problem with massive misconception on the matter of gun possession and how laws can change the mentality of a nation.
Here's how I see it, and what I'd like many people to realize and understand correctly:
The thing is, people do change due to laws. That’s why they exist and are applied in such ways. They’re norms for what is acceptable and what isn’t, along with the consequences.
[if you want to go straight to the point, scroll down, it’s indicated in bold font]
In this case - the Second Amendment for possession of guns, what does it tell you?
“It’s perfectly okay to own guns.”
Only it isn’t. It’s actually very disturbing.
Who on Earth can feel safe, when you know people, and quite a big percentage of them, out there carry guns in their purses, on the streets? Or keep them in their homes, where their children are supposed to grow up in a safe environment?
Should we accept that everyone who has a gun for self-protection expects any minute to be attacked with a life threat, and will have to use a gun to protect this life, even by taking one? Or that any moment someone can trespass your territory and first thing you’ll do is shoot them? And those same people will be protected by law, because, in most cases, they acted by impulse. Every now and then someone goes on a spree, like this recent case, and quite many others in the USA. How can you know that someone out there, from all the people carrying guns on the streets, won’t decided to stick it back to the world and take as many lives, along with their own, as they can.
Why should those people be allowed access to guns?
After the pre-argument was made, now to the point how laws do change people.
Best example, and you really can’t find argument against this - smoking in public places.
Think about 20 years ago and now.Quite big transition, and some countries are still going through the process, such as Bulgaria [giving the example, because the events are very actual right now and I follow them closely].
- People are protesting, company owners are protesting - everyone wants to keep smoking in the cafes, bars, pubs, taverns and restaurants.
- There are constant arguments about it, the law has been put up for consideration, then taken down, then up again, then postponed. Now it’s finally accepted. People are raging about it, because they will be sanctioned, if they don’t do as it states.
- There are even things like, restaurants putting up higher prices on the holiday menu reservations, stating it’s because of the non-smoking tax.
- Some places even still allow smoking inside, with the risk of being caught, and people will smoke inside with the same risk. If there’s a check, everyone will have to pay a lot.
And these are similar reactions to what every country would go through, when you decide to limit something as massive. But change happens. Now most of the western world has smoking in public places prohibited. And people have accepted it, no one is mumbling about it anymore.
In Finland, you can’t even smoke in some apartment buildings.
Same with guns.
You put the law restricting [not forbidding] everyone’s access to guns. People will protest, there might be some who’ll buy a bunch of weapons just in case, but this is how a transition happens. In overall, you’ll have less people with guns, lesser chances of someone going crazy and killing many people.
As ending, there was a post a while ago, a very sarcastic, but truthful post stating:
“4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can’t sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you’re not ready to shoot grouse.” -
view full text here
view full text here