I’m going to court trouble again, but things are too crazy. The next mass murderer is probably cruising gun shows or surfing the Dark Side of the Internet (where no background checks happen) to gear up for the next outburst. There’s something about one of the arguments for wide gun distribution that doesn’t make sense to me.
Arming myself to be safe, to have a chance to shoot back, doesn’t make sense. As far as crazy people getting guns: I don’t want to play fair. It doesn’t matter if I’m outfitted to be a one-man SWAT team, I don’t want a certified psycho to have a gun to use against me or anyone else, no matter how threatened it makes them feel or what they think their rights are. All it takes is a crazy person with a clear shot, decent aim and the advantage of surprise for any weapons I have to be useless. I don’t have to worry about shooting back if a maniac can’t take a shot. They don’t deserve a shot anyway. This isn’t the Olympic Competition for the Mutual Target Practice medal (I would imagine there’s only a Gold medal for that one). The only situation that would make me feel safe and secure is if I had all the guns and they had none. Like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark when he came across the fancy swordsman, that’s the kind of encounter I would want to have with a threat. I want the deck thoroughly stacked in my favor; I want the villain to have no chance whatsoever.
I would be willing to prove I’m sane (which is dicey) to get a gun if it meant certifiably crazy people couldn’t get them. Once again, not a sporting attitude, but when lives are at stake, who cares about sport? Let that test be rigged! Let it be difficult enough to get a gun that it feels like qualifying to perform brain surgery or becoming an over the road trucker or an airline pilot or even a member of the Armed Forces. Let it be hard enough to get some guns that qualifying to get one would be something to brag about.
How much money people make or could make on gun sales doesn’t matter. Who says impulse buying is an inalienable right? If someone sells a crazy person a gun that they turn around and use on me or someone I love, my attitude toward the vendor is going to be much less than charitable, even though he may be legally blameless. I would be tempted to pray for lightening bolts or disgusting diseases (or both). I’d definitely want to remind them about a few choice Biblical passages on greed, even if it meant coming back as a ghost.
Since I don’t and won’t purchase a gun, I’m going to work at not trying to let someone get mad enough or think it’s in their best interests to kill me. I don’t do illegal trade of any kind, or bully people much, so I like my chances. Following Jesus means being a person of love and peace, which the vast majority of crazy folks won’t take offense with. If that doesn’t work, if the rare mad person who hates Christianity enough to kill Christians shows up, I have no problem with meeting Jesus tomorrow. Let them shoot me: it will take away my anxiety forever and I’ll be in a better place.
Making sure people can’t shoot dozens of people at a time is worth a little trouble. Probably worth a lot of trouble, I would imagine. Particularly since a lot of regular folks aren’t good shots, anyway (I doubt I could hit the broad side of a barn even with practice). Fair play is an American value, but in this case I think we should stack the deck. Are the death of innocents and the grief of their families a fair price for one person’s ego? Since when does freedom of choice include freedom to kill people?