The current administration supports a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, despite the ineffectiveness which led to it being allowed to expire. President Obama supports a return to policies that had little if any statistical effect in reducing gun violence, while there was also a slight decrease in overall crime after the ban's expiration. If gun bans had any effective way to actually stem social violence, does anyone seriously believe there would be such widespread and sound opposition? If the original ban had been so effective, why let it expire.
As comedian Lee Camp pointed out in a recent show, most reasonable people support some level of gun control. As an anarchist, I oppose the idea that a government with a monopoly on the use of force is the best course in an attempt to stem violence in society, just as it discards the idea that those in the state are as inherently flawed as society overall. But I do believe that tools capable of destruction carry with them a need to use them in a safe manner, and firearms are no exception.
If we can open a dialog to address these issues in an objective way, we might actually begin to address human nature and not just the results of human action, nor does gun control address the variety of ways that individuals harm others, whether with or without the use of firearms. It helps to put things into perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment