public health

Weapon of Choice

Individual weaponry is a part of the development of this country as much as slavery. The first class distinctions determined who was going to have to fight for “freedom” from the monarchy, but all the “citizens” retained individual muskets and guns. Originally, the commoners organized to fight a distant monarchical government, but even then, all were able to carry and bear the responsibility for the creation of the new nation. Unfortunately, the affirmation to the genesis of the United States has become corrupted into an invitation for massacres.
Not everyone requires a gun, and whether such is a personal preference, there should be respect for those who choose not to engage in ownership of this weaponry. No one is without flaws, but if there are extensive recurrences of mental health issues, perhaps it is time to reevaluate whether certain gun owners feel enough accountability towards society not to cause violence. Previous offenders are not allowed to have guns, but domestic abusers — whose victims may have dropped charges after “changes of heart” — still have access to guns. People with obvious mental health issues cannot serve in the military, but still have civilian access to guns. There are ways to restrict access to guns to violent people while permitting hunting and shooting hobbies.
Instead of believing that guns have a place everywhere, municipalities should convene and discuss places where guns are allowed. Without question, casinos — where emotions have the potential to run high — should be a place where people restrict gun access. There are other places where guns could be restricted, but it would require recognition of public safe spaces, much like there are smoke-free locations. If people in government have the political will, and private businesses have the respect of their customers, it would be possible to determine where guns belong and where they should be absent.
People are already having difficulties accessing healthcare, which is needlessly expensive in a fictitious market designed by health insurance companies. While it is considered an inalienable right to own a firearm, the public remains tepid on the notion of nationwide healthcare, even in the event of horrors such as the one depicted in Las Vegas. If gun owners are permitted to own weaponry capable of mass murder, then those people should be required to carry insurance for such an event. No victim deserves further punishment of being bankrupt due to someone else’s chemical imbalance.
Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. Despite the devastating statistics, most gun owners have the capacity not to murder innocent people because of what amounts to a bad day. However, laws are not put in place because people are inherently good, but because society should maintain social contracts that respect the rights of all to life.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: