Killing and Maiming Our Way Towards A Resolve Is Not A Good Solution
The President has made a very plausible argument in his weekly address for what amounts to limiting the accessibility of dangerous weapons that end up far too often into the hands of depraved people and their usage which frankly is not at all recreational. There is a clear distinction here. By narrowing the scope of usage enough to spare innocent lives as well as mitigate acts of terrorism that wake carnage in our communities like we have seen recently in San Bernadino, we would make difficult this dastardly option.
“We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons — weapons of war — to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun. For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but — at a bare minimum — we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.” — President Obama
Far too often is preparing for violence being contemplated as the first resort in dealing with what amounts to social anxieties and to the disillusions that follow in attempting to redeem a wayward cause. And it is way too seldom that we focus on the more plausible alternatives to reacting with such violence, which ultimately contribute to the positive feedback loop of terrorism.
We need to stop making it easy to arrive at the wrong answers and find value in the complexities that bridge our differences. We don’t have to live with the fallacy of this, yet we continue to make and commit to rationalizations for why we need to.