Monday, December 17, 2012

What, as Americans, are we OK with?

Gabe is in his room playing his new video game, and I have an hour before I have to pick the girls up from the bus so I decided to turn on the news.  We have avoided it as much as possible - most information I learned was from searching the internet news sites when the kids were not around.  Beyond just the total sadness of the loss of these 27 people (I include his mother here as well for she is also a victim), I hear people arguing over political stuff.  Personally it makes me ill. . . . But here are my thoughts on it.

I grew up in northern Michigan.  When I lived with my mom we almost always had a loaded gun by the door.  Guns were part of our livelihood.  My parents were avid hunters.  On top of that my parents also believed the government was out to get us and that we had a right to own any gun out there to protect ourselves from when the government decided to do what ever evil thing it was going to do.  We should own flame throwers, machine guns. . . anything out there.  Our second amendment right says we can have these guns and we should have them.

I am not anti-gun.  I see a need for them.  I see a use for them.  When this country was founded there was a good chance your survival depended on owning a gun.  There are still people today who use guns to keep their livelihood.  I see hunting as a good thing.  It keeps the animal population down and provides healthy meat for a family.  My children have held guns and target practiced.  I understand the draw of guns, but for me, personally, I don't see why people need to own some of these guns.  A gun to hunt with - I get it.  A gun for protection - OK - I could see that, but why do you need a gun that will do the kind of damage that some of these guns can do?

So here we are - as Americans - and we have to decide what we are OK with.  Are we OK with people owning the semi-automatic weapons that can carry 30 rounds in them?  Are we OK with people owning guns that really aren't going to be used for hunting?  We have the right to keep and bare arms - the constitution states that - but this constitution was written during a different time.  People were different.

I know, if someone wants to do this kind of damage they can do it without a gun.  Timothy McVeigh and Andrew Kehoe showed us that, but it is harder.  Requires more planning.  Requires more steps that might bring attention to this person and may prevent this from happening.  A gun makes it so easy, especially a gun that can demolish 27 people in a matter of minutes.  Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Kehoe had to put intensive planning into what they did, took a long time to gather all the material needed.  It took a while.  It wasn't a week or two. . . . it was a long time.  A gun makes a moment of anger so much easier to act upon. . .

We can toss blame everywhere here.  We can say the mother shouldn't have owned the guns (which, in all honestly, I kind of think that if you have an unstable person in the home and guns then those guns should be made unavailable to this person).  We can say the mother should have put this individual in an institution (which, the reality of it is there are very few institutions for these individuals.)  We can say "guns don't kill people, people kill people,"  all we want, but the reality of it is that 27 people were blown to pieces because a gun was put in the hands of this young man.  Would these people have been killed if he didn't have access to these guns?  We don't know, but we don know that 20 little kids and 7 adults are gone because this person did have access to these guns.

So I go back to my title of this blog, what are we, as Americans, OK with.  Do we see our right to own these guns as so important that we are going to keep selling them (there is no way we can remove the guns that are already sold and owned, but we could stop selling new guns in this country)?  I am not talking about hunting guns.  I am not talking about six shooter hand guns.  I am talking about weapons that go beyond basic self defense and hunting.  Is the freedom to continue selling these guns that important?  If your answer is "yes" then we, as Americans, have to be OK with things like this happening here in this country.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't still have these guns available (and from what I have read these guns were all purchased legally), and be irate when things like this happen.  We have to choose. . . .


  1. Angel, Angel, Angel, you know my thoughts on this subject and I feel that if more people had guns on them then these kinds of things would not happen. These people would be stopped before they got into the classrooms where the children are. There are more good people out there than bad and if we only focus on the bad people there is something drastically wrong with the morality that people have.

  2. From what I have read Adam actually tried to purchase a gun on Tuesday, but had to wait 5 days. Had he been able to get that gun who knows how many more lives he could have taken. He may have been even angrier at that particular point in time. We just don't know.

    People that are bent on killing other people will find the means somehow. I agree that people with mental issues, or someone in the household with mental issues should not be allowed to own a gun. How do you actually screen for that? Is that, or should that be something that shows up in a background check? I believe we as a society should have that capability. I don't think that that type of information in this day and age should be privileged WHEN PURCHASING A WEAPON. That's my own opinion though. How many of these shootings involve not only angry people, but mentally unstable people? I haven't researched that, so I don't know.

    All I know is, there are more people that own guns and use them responsibly than those that don't. Also, if someone wants a gun...they may just break into "redneck" areas and locate their own. It wouldn't be that difficult to establish who owns a gun. It would take some time/effort, but it could be done and obtained...illegally.

    I think if the government tries to disarm American people it will get a whole lot worse.

    Can you tell which side I'm on?

  3. I go back to my original statement - if these guns are allowed in society then they will never be out of reach of individuals like this. Mr. Lanza's mother, from what I heard, was an educated woman. She probably should have known better than to have these weapons in her home - even locked. Thus, in my opinion, we as a society are not doing the things we should be doing to keep these guns from getting into the wrong hands. If we have these guns in this country they will get in the wrong hands and they will be used like this again.

    I do agree that if someone was going to do something nasty - they would do it without guns. Guns just make it easier. Just like this school was locked like it should have been and this individual went to that school to kill those children. No lock was going to keep him out.

    Would everyone having a gun on their hip prevent something like this? Maybe, but I personally see how nasty and aggressive people down here are in stores and on the road and I would say that I would never leave the home, and nor would I let my children ever leave my home if everyone had a gun on their hip.

    These are just my thoughts. If we need to have these guns available to be purchased than we also have to realize that this sort of thing is going to happen.

  4. Angel, once again I agree with everything you wrote. I said these very same words this morning. It is these TYPES of guns, that can do so much damage so quickly.

  5. The Military uses these weapons and demands training and everyone has to pass, they keep them under lock and key and ONLY certain highly trained individuals get the key. The weapons that the average citizen is getting is in every way as dangerous as those used in WAR... and if you haven't seen what one does... if you haven't witnessed it first hand... you do NOT truly understand why they are called ASSAULT WEAPONS. That is not a put down on anyone... it is a statement about just how deadly and destructive they can be. Sure a fork can be deadly... but not in the same way as these weapons. Not even a deer rifle can cause the kind of damage that these weapons can. One shot, one kill... that's the old saying my Dad used to tell me when we went hunting with our rifles. But an assault weapon changes that to 5-10 shots per kill.... and reloading is super easy... but, just to make it even more convenient... let's make a 50 or 100 round magazine... cause you can never be too sure... Bambi might still be alive and going to bolt on you???

  6. I am a proud gun owner. Have about 18 of them... mostly shotguns. BUT, what people need to understand is that we aren't actually stopping the crazies in any way. Some thing... well, there is nothing you can do... if a crazy wants one, he'll find a way. Well, the background checks that we do on people have stopped 1.8 MILLION people from getting a gun because they were found unqualified. So, it does stop people from getting a gun, via just going and buying it. The young man in Denver got every one of his guns legally. And the laws in Denver allowing for concealed carry are some of the most OPEN and easy laws... if you wanna carry in Denver, it's pretty much encouraged... and did that save anyone? How many law abiding citizens pulled out their weapon and saved the day? So... background checks work, concealed carry does not (not as often as people want to believe).. and just for fun.. look up FEDERAL GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. See how that makes your day.