With the sad events that occurred in Aurora, Colorado or in New York in mind, people may easily overlook a very prominent cause of injuries and fatalities due to firearms: them being in the hands of people with room-temp or even bra-size IQs! Consider the fact that there's a huge number of handguns out there, and a number of truly stupid people as well. The intersection of the two doesn't only occur in a Venn diagram; it can occur in real life.
Here's some examples:
There are several people each year who try to demonstrate what a quick draw they have, despite the near absence of this having occurred in the real life 19th century West. Some of these quick-draw artists fire prematurely, shooting themselves in the thigh or foot!
Then there's the guys who play games, like "Hey, Virgil! I bet I can shoot an apple clean off your haid!"
And then there's the junior Einsteins who make celebratory shots in the air to welcome in the New Year, failing to remember that what goes up must come down, even over a city. We don't need Isaac Newton for that information; Mitch Ryder would suffice!
Unfortunately, none of the states require an I.Q. test for the purchase of firearms.
But there are other possibilities. Requiring a mandatory waiting period before their purchase might at least keep those not already gun owners from shooting someone out of anger. Likewise forbidding those connected of felonies for purchasing them might keep them out of the hands of unconnected former felons.
An additional requirement might reasonably help: mandatory firearms safety training. Here's how:
It might be hypothesized that there are several scenarios that result in a person killing another peson or more than one:
1. In deliberate commission of a crime of murder,
2. In commission of another crime such as robbery, in which murder occurs as a by-product,
3. As an extreme ending of an altercation.
4. As the result of an accident,
5. As a result of normal people acting stupidly.
6. As a result of stupid people being allowed to have guns.
Firearms safety training might at least cut down the number of deaths in the last two or three categories. Some improvement is better than none at all. But you can imagine the hue and cry from the N.R.A. if there was an I.Q. test to qualify for gun ownership!!!!
Or here's another means of reducing fatalities: Encourage the use of Super Soakers instead of firearms to settle differences. Have those television and movie crime fighters carry Super Soakers in their never-ending fight to make society safe. Some of our dumber fellow citizens might get the idea that a Super Soaker is the way to go.
And, sure enough, some doofus will try to rob a bank while using a Super Soaker. In a way, that's appropriate. Bank fees soak us for a lot as it is.
Here's some examples:
There are several people each year who try to demonstrate what a quick draw they have, despite the near absence of this having occurred in the real life 19th century West. Some of these quick-draw artists fire prematurely, shooting themselves in the thigh or foot!
Then there's the guys who play games, like "Hey, Virgil! I bet I can shoot an apple clean off your haid!"
And then there's the junior Einsteins who make celebratory shots in the air to welcome in the New Year, failing to remember that what goes up must come down, even over a city. We don't need Isaac Newton for that information; Mitch Ryder would suffice!
Unfortunately, none of the states require an I.Q. test for the purchase of firearms.
But there are other possibilities. Requiring a mandatory waiting period before their purchase might at least keep those not already gun owners from shooting someone out of anger. Likewise forbidding those connected of felonies for purchasing them might keep them out of the hands of unconnected former felons.
An additional requirement might reasonably help: mandatory firearms safety training. Here's how:
It might be hypothesized that there are several scenarios that result in a person killing another peson or more than one:
1. In deliberate commission of a crime of murder,
2. In commission of another crime such as robbery, in which murder occurs as a by-product,
3. As an extreme ending of an altercation.
4. As the result of an accident,
5. As a result of normal people acting stupidly.
6. As a result of stupid people being allowed to have guns.
Firearms safety training might at least cut down the number of deaths in the last two or three categories. Some improvement is better than none at all. But you can imagine the hue and cry from the N.R.A. if there was an I.Q. test to qualify for gun ownership!!!!
Or here's another means of reducing fatalities: Encourage the use of Super Soakers instead of firearms to settle differences. Have those television and movie crime fighters carry Super Soakers in their never-ending fight to make society safe. Some of our dumber fellow citizens might get the idea that a Super Soaker is the way to go.
And, sure enough, some doofus will try to rob a bank while using a Super Soaker. In a way, that's appropriate. Bank fees soak us for a lot as it is.
Another thought..you can own as many guns as you want but you can only purchase a small amount of ammo.
ReplyDeleteStrengthen a ban on assault rifles, and make possessing one a felony and a stiff conviction.
ReplyDeleteGuns do have a way of thinning out the stupid herd.
ReplyDeleteAndrea's solution is similar to another possible approach I've heard (and written about in my own blog) - price bullets at about $5000 each. If ammo were that expensive, at least gun murders would be priced out of the budget of most people and restricted to the top 1% of the population ... which could kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteI love the soaker idea!!
ReplyDeletethe thing that really upsets me is the number of hunters who injure, sometimes kill, people while they're out there "enjoying" nature
Only Mensa people can have a gun. And they will never remember where they put it.
ReplyDeleteGun toters should be required to wear ridiculous costumes like the person
ReplyDeleteI can go with the soaker idea!
ReplyDeleteI wrote this half in jest, half serious. Seriously, the problem of gun-related homicides is a scandal that we're not effectively addressing in this country.
ReplyDeleteDianne, walking in the woods is a better way to enjoy nature!
I wish the bravados in this country could demonstrate their manliness by counting coup like the Plains Indians did.