Thursday, February 28, 2002
Guns don't kill people, people do. That may well be true, but the fact that guns are so easily available (and cheap) in the United States surely makes it much easier for people to use those guns to kill people. Few in the pro-gun lobby would suggest that private citizens should own thermonuclear weapons or cannons, but if you even suggest that maybe, just maybe the widespread availability of cheap guns is not exactly healthy, and you are accused of being against the American constitution. If you accept that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own nukes, then why is it such a stretch to say that they shouldn't be allowed to own most types of guns? If it is valid to consider the effects of such ownership on the people around you in the first case, why not the second case?
I got to thinking about this after reading about Dell getting in trouble with the gun lobby. Apparently, a certain Jack Weigand got his chaps in a bunch because Dell was reluctant to sell a laptop computer to his company, which is named "Weigand Combat Handguns, Inc." Granted, Dell's cancellation of his order was sort of silly. Do they really think terrorists are going to operate under an obvious name (Dell Representative: "And what was that company name, sir?" Customer: "Muhammad's pipe bomb emporium"). Still, the response on Weigand's part, which basically involved inciting gun owners across the country to boycott Dell, seems wildly out of proportion to what happened.
It just seems selfish on Weigand's part. Does he think that the best thing he can do, in this weakened economy, is to inspire people to stop buying computers from Dell? And why is Mr. Weigand suddenly worried about people being "profiled?" Has he felt a deep seated outrage when he hears that people of middle eastern descent are removed from airplanes because the pilot didn't feel comfortable having them on board? And regarding that "profiling," why does he suddenly choose not to do business with people outside of the United States? Has he suddenly "profiled" everyone outside the United States off his customer list (which includes a LOT of non-terrorists, by the way).
Weigand comes off sounding like a spoiled kid who isn't getting enough attention. Oh no, a bunch of gun-owning white guys are being PROFILED. Call out the national guard. But Abdullah (from India) isn't being allowed to hop on a plane to Denver? Well, we all have to put up with a bit more security since Sept. 11th.
Someone needs to sit Mr. Weigand down and explain to him that the most important thing in the world right now is NOT his ability to own (or build) sniper rifles. Furthermore, the gun lobby needs to consider whether their "right" to buy handguns trumps the public's right not to live in a society awash with handguns. 200 years ago, when people lived mostly on farms, miles away from the forces of law and order and when guns cost somewhere close to a years salary, the "right" to own guns made more sense. Today, when most people live in suburbs and guns cost less than a day's pay at minimum wage, such a right does NOT make sense.
I got to thinking about this after reading about Dell getting in trouble with the gun lobby. Apparently, a certain Jack Weigand got his chaps in a bunch because Dell was reluctant to sell a laptop computer to his company, which is named "Weigand Combat Handguns, Inc." Granted, Dell's cancellation of his order was sort of silly. Do they really think terrorists are going to operate under an obvious name (Dell Representative: "And what was that company name, sir?" Customer: "Muhammad's pipe bomb emporium"). Still, the response on Weigand's part, which basically involved inciting gun owners across the country to boycott Dell, seems wildly out of proportion to what happened.
It just seems selfish on Weigand's part. Does he think that the best thing he can do, in this weakened economy, is to inspire people to stop buying computers from Dell? And why is Mr. Weigand suddenly worried about people being "profiled?" Has he felt a deep seated outrage when he hears that people of middle eastern descent are removed from airplanes because the pilot didn't feel comfortable having them on board? And regarding that "profiling," why does he suddenly choose not to do business with people outside of the United States? Has he suddenly "profiled" everyone outside the United States off his customer list (which includes a LOT of non-terrorists, by the way).
Weigand comes off sounding like a spoiled kid who isn't getting enough attention. Oh no, a bunch of gun-owning white guys are being PROFILED. Call out the national guard. But Abdullah (from India) isn't being allowed to hop on a plane to Denver? Well, we all have to put up with a bit more security since Sept. 11th.
Someone needs to sit Mr. Weigand down and explain to him that the most important thing in the world right now is NOT his ability to own (or build) sniper rifles. Furthermore, the gun lobby needs to consider whether their "right" to buy handguns trumps the public's right not to live in a society awash with handguns. 200 years ago, when people lived mostly on farms, miles away from the forces of law and order and when guns cost somewhere close to a years salary, the "right" to own guns made more sense. Today, when most people live in suburbs and guns cost less than a day's pay at minimum wage, such a right does NOT make sense.
