By Cranky
If a person can’t be trusted with a firearm then they can’t be trusted without a custodian.
-David Codrea
This quote originally caught my eye because it was snarky and amusing. I really didn’t think about it being literally true but as I was doing the copy paste thing it hit me how spot-on this really is. There are four basic lines of reasoning people use when advocating gun control . . .
People will hurt others – If a person is a danger to others, the quote directly applies and they should be placed into some sort of protective custody. They should not be free to commit violence on others. Lock ‘em up.
People will hurt themselves – If a person is at risk for suicide, they need to be placed in some sort of a controlled and protected environment. Some would say that this is a personal choice and they should be allowed to do whatever they choose as a matter of individual liberty. Some say, let them as it would reduce a needless drain on society. Some would argue that they are disturbed and unable to make rational decisions and that brings us back to protective custody.
People will allow their children to hurt themselves – If you can’t keep your child away from firearms how are you going to keep them away from any one of a hundred household items – electrical outlets, for instance – that are just as deadly? In this case, maybe it’s the children that should be in protective custody, but thinking it through, if you are careless at home with your kids, aren’t you likely to be a danger in the workplace or on the freeways?
They will fall into the wrong hands – Basically, if all the people who are a danger to themselves and others are in protective custody why would we even care about this one? The “wrong hands” are all locked away.
So, how do we determine ahead of time who the dangerous or negligent people are? There are some instances where this is obvious and clear. The Aurora killer, for one. His psychologist knew he was a danger and reported it to campus officials but they did nothing since he was no longer a student.
But we could set up a process whereby everyone is screened and if they are deemed to be a danger, they are placed in custodial care. But wait! They haven’t actually done anything wrong . . . and we’re going to restrict their rights and freedom? Yup.
The other approach would be to lock everyone away and then let them out when they prove they aren’t dangerous and/or irresponsible. But wait! That’s even worse. Yup.
No one would stand for such a thing in this country (well actually, I think there are some who would as long as it was proposed by the right party, right politician or for the right reasons). Yet, it’s fine to restrict rights, restrict freedoms and seize the personal property of law abiding gun owners who haven’t actually done anything wrong.
Can you say hypocrite?
Cranky writes at Notes from a Cranky Buddha.