To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat ! Remember: Hold the PERSON accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!So...here's where this breaks down for me. I get the reference to any inanimate object being, shall we say, "neutral" until someone chooses to actively employ it. In that sense, she's right. People, not guns, ultimately kill other people.
But the logical element that is missed in this is that every object has an innate intent for its existence. Pencils exist in order that one can write. Cars exist to serve as transportation. Spoons exist so that we may eat.
Why do guns exist?
At this point you could argue the sportsman's perspective: target shooting, general marksmanship, even hunting (though I find that last indefensible in the modern era). But that represents zero justification for the semi-automatic Glock used in those tragic murders and injuries that occurred in my hometown. Because, beyond any defensible point of view, the innate intent for such a weapon is, purely and simply, killing.
And, if you purchase or own or even endorse such a weapon, you're on board with the free and relatively easy availability of a commodity the primary purpose of which is death.
So don't, in the wake of this soul-numbing episode, trot out that lame defense of the gun culture. Not when a 9-year-old child is dead thanks to a nutcase having free and ready access to firearms. "Second Amendment remedies," my ass! The founders never intended to condone modern-day, single-handed Rambo types, one-man arsenals on a personal mission of destruction. They wanted a "well-regulated militia," a sane group of sane people ready to defend sane things. If you're so keen on "original intent," then why not go out and get yourself a musket and call it good? But it is folly to pretend that the patriots of 1776 could have foreseen this 21st century tragedy, and incorporated its nasty weaponry and toxic political dialogue into their original language. Just as it is folly to say that there should be NO regulation in terms of access to firearm ownership. A functioning mental health system and a requirement for background checks might have gone a long way, in the course of this past week, toward lives saved.
Yes, it's wrong to blame the tool before the user. But it still behooves us to examine the tool's purpose in the course of determining whether the tool, as well as the user, may be equally in the wrong.