Check for web archive captures
No Resistance
By lindamuralidharan on 2018-09-28 05:46:34
Well, no, I'm not rejecting the overall resistance to undemocratic and bigoted and misogynistic national policies and
politicians. What I can't seem to "resist" or keep to my own self-discipline of restraint, is the idea that we can't possibly need
one more article or post about guns. I can't resist in the face of the pain that pierces my chest almost every day. Three
workplace type shootings in one week, I believe. (and finally one by a woman....guns are an equal opportunity destroyer just
like the disease of addiction). I picked up the paper a couple of days ago to see that one of our local prison corrections
officers had shot himself. Dead. True, he was entitled to own a gun as an officer of the court. True, he was under
investigation for unethical sexual offenses with men under his charge at the prison. And I certainly could go on and on about
the vicious attitudes of people and macho males in particular that made it a hundred times worse in his mind that he liked
sexual acts with men as much as with women and that his choices had now become common knowledge. Nonetheless, there
are court processes for investigations and charges. There is counseling for depression and guilt and shame, but there is
nothing that brings you back from the dead when you have accurately used a gun to solve your problems. I don't know
about current research, and I do know that a decade or so ago the research indicated that men are more successful with their
suicide attempts than women on average and that men more often use guns in the process. And of course the gun lovers of
American may point out that we have just had three very high profile murders of women by means of stabbing with knives.
True. And in those instances only one person died and no one else was wounded. All too often those who use guns to solve
their problems kill and wound a number of people. Rarely do perpetrators successfully target more than a very few with
knives. Generally that happens when a family member attacks folks in their beds and there was a man in Japan who
attacked people asleep in a care home. But "mass murders" are usually accomplished in this country with some kind of fire
arm. Vehicles and explosives are somewhat common elsewhere, but we are talking here about the United States. And about
deaths separate from wars, declared or otherwise since that is a topic for another day. [caption id="attachment_ 11687"
align="alignright" width="600"]
constitutional
convention[/caption] Oh, yes, and the day after the corrections officer died by his own hand a man was shot dead in a nice
high rise apartment in the middle of Honolulu. Police were attempting to search the apartment for illegal substances and had
to kick in one of the bedroom doors that was locked. Inside was a man holding a gun pointed at the police. A justifiable
shooting by the police to be sure. My point would be that they would not likely have been in a position that required instant
deadly force had not the man had a gun. He may have stolen it or gotten it from one of his accomplices (assuming that the
others in the apartment were involved in illegal drug sales). I want to emphasize over and over that we have too many guns
out there and too much praise of guns and their value. Some say a gun is important for self-defense. The man shot by the
police....how good a defense was his gun? Or how useful was it to fend off unwanted government forces? Again that is one
of the arguments for promiscuous gun ownership. I do believe that advocates would say only "law abiding people" are
supposed to have defensive guns. The problem is that one man's law is another man's irritant. The problem is, that in a
moment of passion a previously law abiding husband (or wife, on rare occasion) may shoot first and think later and thus
become a criminal. [caption id="attachment_11689" align="alignleft" width="270"]
: -
A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state,
_ the right of the people to keep and bear
7 arms, sb shall) not be infringed.
Hib linincne. ai h q The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States[/caption] In the
ideal society iety that so many of us and the founding parents have been striving for, violence is to be used as a very last resort.
In the meantime, patience and the seeking of redress through courts or mediators or counselors or legislators or other outside
assistance are to be the "weapons" of choice in a society of laws, not men (humans). We have a great deal of
intersectionality, as it is called these days, in these recent sad stories. How much does mental illness aggravate the unwise
use and possession of guns? It seems the woman who became an active shooter had a number of personal and mental health
problems, and in recent weeks her family was alarmed and worried she might actually harm herself or worse. What can we
do as a society to make it easier for families and police and communities to remove guns from the hands of people
exhibiting actual signs of potential violence? Is not the right to live of the innocent people shot in these instances a higher
"right" than the right to keep a gun? [caption id="attachment_11690" align="alignleft" width="280"]
The safe family gun guide:
You need these for ner :
carjackers and rapists: are |g a |
This one for burglars: *
ee ;
his one for people who try
€ to take
& ny them away:
The Second Amendment:
When they tell you don't need it, . . .
thatthwuharcnn snail nandis Self explanatory[/caption] There is controversy over what the true intent of the
Second Amendment i is....as designed by forefathers of our democracy. Gun advocates have some ready quotes from the
likes of George Washington and others stating that the only way to manage potential community lawlessness is to have guns
to hand. Others have produced scholarly research indicating it really was the intention to have people who could form
militias as needed to defend against rebellions and secessions and outside attacks that prompted the rule that folks ought to
keep personal weapons. The greatest fear was of a standing army that could bring back oppression so the next best thing
was smaller local militias that could be called into action at a moment's notice. The conditions are so different now......we
really do have a huge standing army and quite an effective police force that could do the job of militias. Now there is not
the same need for individuals to be armed. From the 1930's on, people of certain political persuasions and arms
manufacturers sponsored the growing power of the NRA to the point we are, as the saying goes, "awash" in guns and
ammunition. No matter how anachronistic it may be, right now there does not seem to be any practical means of returning
to a more rational interpretation of the Second Amendment. What we need very badly to make practical, is the reduction in
the prevalence of fire arms and the change in cultural attitudes about their role in our personal lives. We have changed
attitudes towards the role of tobacco in our personal lives, and the result has been a significant reduction in the sales of
tobacco products and a reduction in their use, especially of the kind that is smoked directly. [caption id="attachment_11691"
align="alignright" width="600"]
ze # = ies ” Killed three other people and
herself at her work place. Snochia Moseley[/caption} There is no harm in somebody being fascinated by guns. All kinds of
fire arms can be admired in museums and books. We don't all need to own a Rembrandt or Van Gogh to thoroughly enjoy
their work. Some people adore cars and go to car shows. After 5 minutes that woul bore me. I do like to spend a lot more
time at historical exhibits. I loved the exhibit of the life and times of Genghis Khan that was presented at the Ronald Reagan
museum in California when I was visiting there last summer. There is no harm in our having different predilections, and
under controlled circumstances such as at gun clubs and shooting ranges, a person wanting some hands on experience with a
beloved gun model could have that in relative safety. So I write to keep the horrors of gun deaths and their possible
prevention in the public eye. I want people to think about the very real humans who have been killed by guns this month
and through out all the months of 1918. I want more people to cringe at the very thought of a friend or relative buying a gun
(outside of for use in hunting).
