This past week, Charleston was added to the list of mass shootings that have happened in the United States in the recent years. With schools, theaters, churches and more being added to the list with each day, I felt compelled to give my commentary on the matter.
Is the problem guns?
I will not be the first to deny that there is a growing hysteria in the US regarding weapons. Both police and civilians have misused weapons and it is time that we, as a nation take action. Guns are not the problem at the end of the day, but it is the unethical attribution of these weapons that is dangerous. To give a human being the ability to choose life for someone else is both an ethical violation of human rights, as well as a moral paradox in “faith” when faith is used to justify death.
The problem, then, is not the gun itself but the ammunition that the weapon is filled with. While I may have a pistol (I really don’t), if I don’t have ammunition, the weapon becomes obsolete. Could this problem easily be solved with the restriction on ammunition and for it to be replaced with something far less lethal?
A Post Ammunition World
In the United States, it is easy to obtain a weapon. As long as you are above the legal age, you can acquire weapons without any background checks, without any restrictions of any kind. Terrible crimes could easily be avoided if some check-and-balance was enforced but, to no surprise, right-winged conservatives would have a field day if the government started regulating ammunition.
Could you imagine, all civilians would be only granted a number of ammo per year and, in order to restock, must present empty shells? Could you imagine the push-back but, alternatively, the amount of money that would save the government.
Or what if all ammunition of any kind was banned and, instead, was replaced with blanks or some kind of stun-ammunition that didn’t actually kill anyone but stun them until “a final blow is made.” Imagine a world were an actual killing is done by hand and not by a rifle from far away.
That sounds terrible, and this is a very difficult topic to explain, but were we to remove the ability for people to carelessly end someone’s life, the lives saved would outweigh the political strife of such a decision.
But Better Yet …
As a pacifist, obviously I don’t believe in violence. My dad forced me to take gun-safety training because he said “his children needed to know how to defend themselves and how to properly care for a gun.” While I understood the sentiment, I knew very well from the moment I held this device that I would never actually use said device. To this day, while still reminded of my training on my state ID, I have never killed a living thing with a weapon — for that I am proud.
Perhaps the only true way of ending the unnecessary violence in our world is to remove the weapons where that choice is easy to make. Perhaps the violence towards others is personified through the lives of the animals we kill for food, for sport, for thrill. I’m not going to go on some vegetarian, pacifist, liberal rant on the ethics of murder (unless absolutely requested), but our path to peace starts with our acceptance of consciousness of others (whether animals or people).
I’d really love to hear your thoughts on the issue of weapons, guns and more. Obviously I’m not condoning anything, but I’d love to hear alternatives to ammunition, to guns and to unjust violence.