Gun Stupidity

I am on record regarding gun ownership and the requirements for gun ownership.  I believe in the inviolability of the Second Amendment with reasonable restrictions, e.g., no AT4's, no SAWS, etc., and the need for a more integrated national background check system.  But I disagree with those who would outlaw guns absolutely.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Unless there's some sort of design or mechanical flaw in the weapon causing it to accidentally misfire without being touched, it requires either a human or a human rigging it to fire.  So ultimately, people do kill people with guns, as they kill them with cars, knives, poisons, wood chippers, candlesticks, fire and countless other means.

Still, that doesn't mean that people who are otherwise mentally sound don't have moments where they lose it. Recently, two such events made the news.

The first involves, of all things, a retired cop in Florida who became upset with a young father who was texting before the movie began.  The facts are what they are, and it would appear that the young father injudiciously threw popcorn on the retired cop, but the cop turned around and shot the man dead in the theater in front of his wife.  Now he's claiming self-defense.

The second incident occurred more than two years ago.  An older white man approached a car with black teens listening to what he called thug music, whatever that is, and asked them to turn it down.  They refused, he insisted, he claims he saw a gun and he pulled out his pistol and sprayed the car with shots, wounding some of the youths and killing one of them.  No weapon was found in or around the car by the police. Again, the man is claiming self-defense.

Does it surprise anyone that both of these incidents took place in Florida?

But I digress.

Gun control advocates can point to these incidents as support for their argument that guns should be more tightly controlled.  I disagree.  There is no way that law-abiding citizens should have their rights infringed for these hideous acts than motorists should have their licenses restricted because there are idiots out there killing people while driving impaired.  It's utterly illogical to penalize the good for the actions of the bad, yet that's what gun control advocates would argue.  They'd never think to restrict drivers' rights because of the incidence of drunk driving, but restricting gun owners' rights is perfectly acceptable to them.

That being said, both of these shooters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, found guilty and thrown in jail for as long as they can keep them.  These were depraved acts that admit of no logic.  There was no self-defense; in the first case, the response was disproportionate.  In the second, there is no evidence that the youths had a weapon of any kind.

There is no way to legislate against stupidity or anger.  There is no way to prevent either from overtaking a person.  Laws can act as deterrents, but they cannot prevent things from happening.  When laws are broken, as I believe happened in both these cases, punishment must be meted out.  It is now incumbent upon the judicial system to do its job and put these criminals -- because they broke the law, that's what they are -- behind bars for as long as the law allows.

Two innocent lives were snuffed out because someone's version of right and wrong was offended, not because anyone was threatened with imminent death or injury.  These shooters broke the law.  The laws are followed by the vast majority of gun owners, but these two broke the law.  It can be argued that Adam Lanza's mother broke the law as well by not only keeping guns near her mentally challenged son, but by giving him access to the guns with which he carried out his deadly attack.

Laws exist against drunk driving, robbing banks and raping women, yet those laws are broken, sadly, everyday.  These gun owners were stupid, angry and criminal.  They should be fully punished for their actions.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles