Tuesday, 23 December 2014
To Carry or Not to Carry
A friend of mine who is a strong pro-gun activist, commented, "This is why you carry. Another thug bites the dust."
This was no thug, it was a misguided kid. A kid who is now dead. Over a pair of shoes. That kid must have had a family, friends, and people who loved him, who will now have to bury their child instead of celebrating Christmas.
Things like this occur every single day - both reported and not reported - and there seems to be no end in sight. This isn't the Old West any more, where the only law in town was the Sheriff and disputes were settled with shootouts in the street. However we seem to be heading back in that direction.
I wrote a short time ago about escalation. We're seeing that as well. A person starts out with a .38 revolver, his rival has a .357 Magnum, so he upgrades to a Glock, the other person gets a .22 rifle, so then he gets an AK-15 and so on. Where does one draw the line?
A gun is designed for only one thing. It's not for target shooting, it's not for "protection", or however you want to define it. It's made to kill another living creature.
Remember that little rule that says "Thou shalt not kill"? That seems pretty clear to me.
Not to mention, how many soldiers overseas were killed by improvised explosives? Those soldiers were equipped with some of the best weaponry and body armour available, but that was of no help to them. Or that Aurora Colorado shooting where a guy marched into a movie theater and killed 12 people? It was dark, the gunman had set off tear gas, and people were panicking. Even if people in the audience had been armed, their guns would have been no help.
As far as the Cincinnati situation goes, the smart thing for the man to have done was to hand over the shoes to the kid instead of shooting him. Then nobody would have been hurt. It's just stuff. Stuff can be replaced. Lives can't. That man will have to live with his decision for the rest of his life.