Saturday, February 24, 2018

Will America choose guns or children?

In the aftermath of the latest school shooting in Florida, The editorial board of the New York Times asked Will America Choose Its Children Over Guns?

Scriber’s answer: No. If “America” is defined as adult citizens, then the answer is “hell no!” The message needs to be sent to America’s children that only they can save the nation. They live under the constant threat of being the next victim of a mass shooting at their own school. The Times nailed it:

Sensible young people have it in their power to make their senseless elders take heed — and act. We saw it happen during the Vietnam War half a century ago. Young people, initially reviled by establishment forces as unwashed, longhaired traitors, energized an antiwar movement that swept the country and, even if it took years, ultimately ended America’s misguided adventure in Southeast Asia.

If you doubt it, read the various news reports on what adults are saying. In a nutshell: we want our guns. My generation will do little if anything to protect its children.

Suspend reality for a moment in favor of a thought experiment. Imagine that there were no guns available to civilians in America. How many school shootings would there be? We already have the answer. Australia did it and the result was that shooting stopped. New Zealand did it after the only school shooting 100 years ago.

But that won’t happen. It won’t happen because the gun loonies likeNRA’s LaPierre and Loesch won’t let it happen. More importantly, it won’t happen because supposedly sensible, supposedly responsible gun owners won’t let it happen.

In Parents and Students Plead With Trump: ‘How Many Children Have to Get Shot?’ the Times quoted survivors and their parents from this and earlier shootings. For example:

“It should have been one school shooting, and we should have fixed it — and I’m pissed,” said Mr. Pollack, the only parent of a child killed in Parkland who was at the session, raising his voice as he looked at Mr. Trump. “Because my daughter, I’m not going to see again.”

Mr. Pollack said he did not favor adopting new gun restrictions, but pleaded for Democrats and Republicans to come together to create new school safety measures.

“It’s not about gun laws right now — that’s another fight, another battle,” he said. “We need our children safe.”

Translation: I am angry that my child was shot but I don’t want to do anything that infringes on so-called “gun rights”.

Even those that speak out most strongly about limitations on assault weapons, in my opinion, come up short. For example, this Times’s op-ed authors says I’m Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.. The author tries having it both ways:

… The exact definition of assault weapon will need to be determined. But we should all be able to agree that the civilian version of the very deadly weapon that the Army issued to me should certainly qualify. I would not support any version of a ban that results in confiscating existing legally owned firearms.

So the current crop of AR–15s would remain in place because they are at present legal.

Unless we get over the sanctity of the 2nd amendment and give up the idolatry of the AR–15, the nation’s children are doomed. That is why they have the most at stake and are our best, our only hope for a sane future.

No comments:

Post a Comment