One thing that I hope to adhere to in this blog is to maintain the middle road as much as reason allows for all political/economic discussions. With that being said, however, I simply can't understand the logic (or lack thereof) that exists in recent gun debates. How on earth did we get to a point where our response to the tragic shootings in Arizona, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood is to push for more people to have easier access to weapons? Why do we approach such and important subject using anecdotal stories and reasoning that involves the fact that guns allow people to protect themselves better? Why can't we have an open/educated discussion regarding whether increased access to guns does indeed lower crime and risk for a gun owner? (perhaps because most academic studies show that gun ownership actually increases the risk to the owner?)
Here is a great quote from the article:
"Brodeur’s is one of many, many gun bills floating around state legislatures these days. Virtually all of them seem to be based on the proposition that one of the really big problems we have in this country is a lack of weaponry."
And another:
"Which they really aren’t. The gun lobby will never be happy, unless the health care law specifically requires every American to have a pistol on his or her person at all times."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10collins.html?hp
No comments:
Post a Comment