Not a lot to be said of it, except that this story comes along and further demonstrates the lack of common sense.
I cannot know, but only try to imagine, what it is like to lose a sister in this way:
But let's be honest:
1. This abuser could have committed this crime with a knife, a hammer, a machete or even used his vehicle to run over her and anyone else around. He could have burned the house down with her in it. Yet we are not asking to outlaw those methods. You would think an NRA member would know that there are many tools people us to commit violence. But let's remember that asking the bereaved and grieving relative of someone who has been brutally murdered - no matter what the weapon of choice was - is not likely to get us rational workable solutions, but instead ideas based on guilt and grief. Loss and grief are real and painful, but they are not a credentials.
2. I am wondering why this NRA member did not work with his sister, who he seemingly new was at risk, to help her devise better ways of defending herself than trusting in a piece of paper to protect her. As an NRA member, this gentleman should have known that those who commit violence do not care about rules or papers; in fact, it is likely no law - even an advanced judgement that would not made it illegal for him to procure a firearm - will stop someone who wants to obtain a firearm and kill another person. He could have gotten her to some good effective training and helped her to find ways to protect herself, to be prepared. And such training and strategies need not always include a firearm; the NRA offers courses (as do other places) on how not to be a victim for those who would like to learn more about personal security but are not ready to use a firearm to defend themselves.
It is important to note this paragraph from the Huffington Post article:
"The two bills being considered in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would strengthen federal gun prohibitions for convicted domestic abusers and those deemed by a judge to be a physical threat to a woman. Klobuchar's bill would include physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers in the category of persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun. Blumenthal's bill would ban guns for those who have been issued a temporary restraining order by a judge for domestic violence."
How would this have helped in any way? Their bill, if made law, would have banned him from obtaining a firearm in a lawful manner. Do we think that this killer would have, therefore, not sought a firearm in some other way (I'll say again - how's that drug war going for you?)? If you think so, then welcome to fantasy land. Bad people are going to do bad things. We cannot build a wall of laws around them big enough to keep them from preying on us.
So what gun law is going to guarantee you are always safe? A law against murder did not stop this killer - it does not stop others. A restraining order did not do so - they never do - and it is a legal document. The police who "protect and serve" cannot always be there and are not, by law, required to protect you, to guarantee your safety.
It is really about time (well it has been) that we realize that no one, no government, no law, no web of complex prohibitions, can create a world where no violence occurs, where we are not all at risk, much less those whose situation places them in even greater peril. We, as a decaying society, seek solace in blaming the violence on "things" we do not like, rather than people who do violence and the society we have built that seemingly fosters it. We, as a society, go with what "feels" right to us, not what is real. We teach by example that life has little meaning except for fulfilling our own individual pleasures, and then are surprised when people no longer value others' lives. We sit in our little hovels, looking for someone to take this burden of being responsible for our own safety off of our shoulders. What are they going to do with no more laws can be made and still they are left to hide, when they have traded every shred of their freedom for a security that does not and cannot exist.
I, for one, am not waiting for that time or for some miracle end to the predatory violence that surrounds us. I suspect that this poor man's testimony to congress was a reflection of his guilt over not having recognized his sister's peril and been more proactive in helping her prepare to defend herself. It is time we were all proactive. My questions about such events are less about why the predator did it, but why wasn't she prepared to defend herself, why no one told here the truth, was honest with her and helped her be ready. The obvious answer is because the fearful, hiding under their beds, waiting for the law to save them, convinced her as they have convinced many others in their naivete, that absolute safety without personal responsibility was a reality, that a piece of paper was enough.
They all share the guilt with her killer.
No comments:
Post a Comment