Follow The Stir

Focus on Gun Control Is Misdirected

by Ilina Ewen on July 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I am not a fan of guns. In fact, I am scared of them. I would make a terrible gun owner. That’s why I don’t own one. I don’t begrudge (legal) gun owners. My niece’s husband is an avid hunter on his own plot of farm land and took my son out for some winter deer hunting. (My son was decked out in orange and protective gear but did not carry a gun. I should also note that my niece’s husband did not shoot at anything in an effort to be as safe as possible while my son was under his watch. For that, I am grateful.). I do grapple with gun laws and marvel at how guns hold a certain glory among some people. I question our current laws, the state of our society, and the vehement rage that ensues from both sides when the issue of gun control crops up. And I can’t help but wonder why assault weapons are necessary, enjoyable, or legal. The hobbyist sportsmen and women among us do not need such weapons in their arsenal.

It's an obscene twist it seems that after mass killings like the one in Aurora, Colorado last week, gun owners spin themselves as the victims. There are rants in defense of guns all over the media and blogosphere. My own Facebook feed is full of statistics supporting gun owners and various interpretations of the Second Amendment. We should be bowing our heads for the real victims and their families, not reaching for our beloved weapons and espousing what we woulda shoulda coulda done had we been on the scene. Now is not the time for the “what if” game. Now is not the time for blaming or judging. We should be coming together to mourn the loss of innocent lives at the hands of a sick man whose name needs no further mention. It is worth noting, however, that it is easier to get a gun in this country than sound mental health care. We are up in arms about the wrong issue here, folks.

My paradigm for the horror in Aurora centers on my friend’s experience couple years ago. He was shopping the aisles of Target with his 6-year-old daughter when an armed gun man rampaged through the store. He wrote of his experience, and the scene is chilling. His words move me as a parent more than as a gun control advocate. My first reaction is not how I would have fought back or been a hero. I cannot stop thinking about what I would do if my own young sons were caught in the line of fire. Honestly, I don’t think firing a concealed weapon would have done the job. The darkness, the chaos, the sheer emotion of it all would be crippling. I live in a state that allows concealed weapons ... in parks and in establishments that serve alcohol. Booze and guns are an especially bad combination, regardless where you fall in the gun control debate.

It seems a strange paradox to “fight fire with fire,” something akin to spanking a child for hitting his sibling. I simply cannot wrap my head around it.

But for now, my head and whatever thoughts of gun control are swirling around in it are not important. It is my heart that’s heavy.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Where Do You Stand on the Gun Control Debate?


Image via Francois Polito/Wikimedia

Filed Under: 2012 election, behind the vote, crime, death, guns, health care, in the news, politics

Comments

12
  • Maevelyn
    --

    Maevelyn

    July 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

    I think the debate is a push pull. Some one says "see guns are evil" and another person says "no people are evil." Everyone gets afraid of their rights being taken away because of a big shooting and other people imagine that they would be a hero in such an event. My aunt is an avid hunter and outdoors woman who frequents shooting ranges. When she was robbed at knife point while carrying a conceled weapon (with a permit.) She didn't draw the gun and everyone wanted to know why. She couldn't bring herself to elevate the robbery to that level, even though they ended up tying her up and beating her pretty badly. She wasn't ready to draw a gun on another human but the men who robbed her ultimately killed some one they were robbing with their knives. My point is non of it is as simple as anyone imagines. Arming half the room wouldn't have guaranteed any-one's safety, taking guns away wouldn't have stopped that guy from killing. I agree the debate is silly and insensitive. Imagining a better world is natural but it's just folly. No one knows what they or anyone else would do.  


  • Pinkmani
    --

    Pinkmani

    July 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    I agree, Illina. I'm way too afraid of guns, but I'm not afraid of using a taser or some pepper spray. I feel like James' mother knew that he was capable of harming himself/others because she said, "You have the right person". 


  • JAFE
    --

    JAFE

    July 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

    What you have to remember and always keep in mind is that criminals don't abide by the law. Gun control laws won't bother them.

    A law abiding citizen wouldn't have snuck into a crowded movie theater and killed so many people.

    Remember that.

     


  • Flori...
    --

    Floridamom96

    July 26, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    Honestly the whole point is moot. The second amendment to the Constitution protects every individual's right to keep (own) and bear (carry ) arms without restriction. If you don't like that the only honorable thing you can do is seek to change the constitution. All gun/arms laws and restrictions are currently unconstitutional. Period.


  • Guest
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Guest

    July 26, 2012 at 11:43 AM
    @Pinkmani "I feel like James' mother knew that he was capable of harming himself/others because she said, "You have the right person". "

    James' mother publicly stated that she was mis-quoted by ABC.
  • Flori...
    --

    Floridamom96

    July 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    Yes, her statement was in reference to herself, not her son. Like Jon Stewart said, what does it take to get fired at ABC?


  • Procr...
    --

    Procrastamom

    July 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

    As usual, Ilina, you're the voice of reason around these parts.  It is so out of my realm of experience to ever have to worry about people carrying guns.  I read a comment somewhere last week where someone said, "if only the movie theatre had had a metal detector like they do in New York" and my mind was basically blown.  Do people really have to walk through a metal detector to go watch a movie?  Really, really?  That is just so alien to me.  Nobody walks through metal detectors in Canada, unless they're at the airport, yet CHILDREN have to walk through them every day in a lot of schools in the states.


  • NewMo...
    --

    NewMomma.S

    July 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM
    Tell you what, someone threatens my life, with a knife or otherwise, and I'm carrying, they're getting shot. Period. I'm sorry this was offensive but that wasn't very smart of your aunt. She's lucky they didn't find her gun and use it on her. It's the SECOND amendment, folks. Not the fifth or twelfth or twentieth - number two. Must have been a pretty important issue to the founders. People cite God and faith as something our country was founded on, well so was the right to bear arms. I understand if you don't want to own guns, but don't mess with my right to own them. I used to live in Aurora. And in the part of town where this tragedy happened you want to be carrying....
  • Littl...
    --

    LittleFrogsMA

    July 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM

    How about some sensible reforms?

    Like no ak-47s in private hands?  

    Like requiring licensing and routine testing of gun owners?

     Like requiring proof of a gun safe?

    Like titling guns so that we can track them when they are sold or stolen better?

    Like requiring insurance for gun owners?


  • Guest
    -- Nonmember comment from

    Guest

    July 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM
    How about some sensible reforms?

    How about preventing all "Public Accommodations" from infringing on people exercising their Human Right to self defense as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

    Should people be required to;

    apply to the government for permission in advance,
    wait to be granted that permission (which may or may not be granted at government whim),
    be recorded and tracked in the process,
    then only in limited circumstances, times and places, as dictated by the government,
    under strict rules, regulations, and restrictions,

    be allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights?
1-10 of 12 comments

To leave a comment, log in as a CafeMom member:

Log In

OR, use our non-member comment form: