I get that there are people out there that I have major disagreements with. "Gun nuts," or those that are going to be around talking about how if every teacher in that school had a gun, this wouldn't have happened - they're at the top of that list.
Rest assured, there will be those people out there. I used to debate some of them online for a bit, before I got sick of the irrational generalizations and reasoning used. It was like all empathy had been drained of people that are otherwise probably very pleasant to be around. Its like this one issue is accessed in a portioned-off part of their brain, where feelings of empathy and concern for the welfare of others is completely skewed, or non-existent.
A lot of this I blame on the polarizing debate surrounding guns in America, and to a lesser extent, up here. Such extreme positions are taken by both sides that people, when defending either side, feel the need to step into another person's skin. In order to rise to the level of discourse - or lower themselves, depending upon your view - they can't take their everyday personalities along with them. The person who debates guns, and I do say this about either side, they're like what the regular person's personality would be if you took a few data points - fear of safety for their family, individual rights, the liking of loud noises and shooting things - and modified them to their extreme conclusions. A shadow of their usual lives, that only comes out when this debate is forced to come out at the same time.
Warren Kinsella, of course, has said clearly that he hates these people. Fair enough. But I propose that instead of maybe hating people outright, we try to understand why they think like they do on these subjects. "Gun nuts" are people to, and unless they're total sociopaths - not ruling that out for some - they have justified their positions somehow in their minds. The key to bringing the discourse back to a reasonable level is understanding how it got so out of hand in the first place. Unfortunately I don't see that coming from people like Kinsella. That is a problem. We're not going to win them over by calling them names.
Maybe we can start with this fact. All individuals
of whatever ideology must come to terms that having a rapid-firing
assault rifle is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only -
killing other human beings. I don't know why the mother of Adam Lanza, a
teacher, bought and kept those weapons, but I do know that Adam put
them to their intended use. They're designed to kill, simple as that.
Surely, that is something we can agree on?
Moving on, though, Mike Huckabee, the former Arizona Governor and presidential candidate, said this was because of "God" being taken out of school - he and his ilk also very near the top of the list of people I cannot stand.
I'm an atheist, so such nonsense makes very little sense to me. However, not everyone is me - but surely, surely they can see that blaming God being taken out of the education system, the very first thing you say, is immoral and wrong. Immoral and wrong to such a degree that the idea of ever electing someone like Huckabee would be paramount to putting Osama Bin Laden in the White House.
In fact, if someone like, I don't know, Iran's president said the same thing - total, utter condemnation would come from the United States. A formerly high elected official and possible contender for the President's office in the future says it, and Fox's ratings go up.
What the hell is right about that situation. You tell me.