I wrote my one blog for the day. I was going to post this argument as a status, but decided to do it as a blog. Mostly to have it on the record as the status would fade down the page. But also, because it would be too long.
For those of you who don't like to read more than a few sentences, here it is:
Sandy Hook should have started an argument about irresponsibility, not gun control. Gun control is a serious issue, but it is neither the issue nor the reason Sandy Hook happened.
Those that want to delve deeper with me, read on.
I have a lot to say about the Sandy Hook massacre. But this blog is not about that. Not directly anyway.
Very indirectly it is, but barely.
When Sandy Hook happened, it was a shock to most. Not to me, but to most. Yes, it was a tragedy. But it was hardly surprising. Here's why (In my opinion).
The biggest debate about Sandy Hook has been gun control. But Sandy Hook didn't happen because of the lack of gun control. It happened because of irresponsiblity. No gun control law can overcome how irresponsible the mother of Adam Lanza was. She paid for that with her life, but so did 26 others.
Do guns need to be under better control? Yes.
If they are under better control, will the school, theater, mall and gang shootings stop? No.
But the simple fact is that in this case, the debate that was started would have never happened if Adam Lanza's mother had a shred of common sense and was responsible. If you have a clearly mentally unstable and psychotic child in your house and you have the kind of weapons she had, and you are also thinking that he is so bad you are getting ready to have him committed, then you simply do not under any circumstances leave any shred of a chance for him to gain access to those weapons.
You certainly don't go away for a few days and leave him alone in that house with assault weapons that obviously were not secured. It is about lack of being responsible. Pure and simple. This is not something you can legislate. All you can do is educate and punish those that don't want to accept the obligations that go with rights. You don't take the rights away from the responsible people because of the irresponsible people. That is backwards logic.
This is exactly the same thing that happened when the mortgage crisis hit. Are reckless, greedy, self centered and arrogant bankers to blame for the housing crisis? No.
Do they need to be reigned in for what they do and how they do it? Yes.
But the simple fact is that people who borrow money for things they can't possibly have a chance in hell of affording because they have no education to understand what they are doing and don't care either way until they default are the problem. They are irresponsible.
Arguing otherwise is riding the wrong horse like it is the winner. No matter what, it can't be the winner. The gun control horse is not the winner in the search for answers in this case. The irresponsibility of those who are allowed to have guns because it is their right but assume no obligation to take proper care and safety with them is the right horse.
The argument about gun control in this case will lead no where and go no where. Just like a horse who can't win because it is the wrong horse in the wrong race.