The Right To Arm Bears

        You can have my guns when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

    Ironically, that's the way it usually ends.
        Don't get me wrong. I am NOT anti-gun. I'm also not PRO-gun. As with many subjects, I am pro-choice. I believe you should have the choice to live as you wish, which is one of the greatest things about this country. Religion: you're supposed to be able to worship as you like. Opinion: you should be allowed to think and speak as you like. Abortion: you should be able to choose as you like. Marriage: you should be able to marry the person you love.
    The operate words here are SHOULD and SUPPOSED TO. These are very slippery slopes, as are all things associated with free will. The most frustrating and aggravating thing about free will is also the greatest: EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.
    2012 was a very polarizing year, all the way to the bitter, heartbreaking end. A rash of shootings through the year brought the issue of gun control, security, personal safety, and school safety into question and into the forefront of national debate and discussion. Shortly after the movie theater shooting in Colorado, a New Haven lawyer was arrested for having a gun in a movie theater. He didn't brandish it, another patron saw it and panicked, calling the police. The lawyer had a permit, the gun was registered, he did nothing wrong. He was merely caught in the panic casued by a random act of violence on the other end of the country.
    Fast forward a few months. Adam Lanza storms Sandy Hook Elementary and takes out a classroom full of first-graders and a handful of teachers and administrators. Again, the weapons used were legal and registered, and Lanza was educated in their use by his mother, who was also one of his victims.
    So how do we stop this? There's a Consitutional amendment more than 230 years old that says we're allowed to own these weapons. One of the hottest debate points is the current validity of this amendment. It's a sign of the times, they say. However, specific amendments had to be made over the years to permit African-Americans to live in equality with caucasians, to allow women the right to vote and own property, to allow us to purchase and consume alcohol... the question that arises (and this is not the first time) is where do we begin and where do we stop? Do we really need to have EVERYTHING in writing? Do we need to have a black and white answer for EVERY possible issue that may arise?If there is a Constitutional issue, does every possible scenario need to be outlined and covered? Do you honestly think Jefferson and Franklin foresaw a young man barging into a school to wipe out a bunch of small children? Did anyone?
    There has been past legislation concerning firearms. This is not a new issue. Every time a shooting makes the news, the debate is renewed. Here's the problem: most current control and legislation only goes back 30 years or so, back to the Brady Bill. There was a time you could walk into a store and buy not just one, but a carload of firearms at the same time. You could bring a gun on a bus, on a plane, anywhere, and not be hassled about it. It wasn't until terrorists started hijacking planes in the 70's that it became a clear issue. After the Reagan shooting, people went nuts saying it was too easy to get guns, that sometrhing needed to be done. It happened again in the late 80's/early 90's when a combination of "gangsta rap" and workplace shootings brought assault weapons into the public eye: you could just walk into the bait and game shop and buy an M-16 or AK-47 the same way you'd pick up a Winchester or a revolver. Questions began to rise, what could you possibly use a military-grade assault rifle for?
    The gun lobby claimed sport and hunting. The liberals literally laughed at that, conjuring images of deer wearing bullet-proof vests and carrying high-powered rifles, cartoons of "Bambo" being published in newspapers. Ever since the inception of the Brady Bill, the gun lobby has tried to convince the public that "the government wants to take away your guns." As I said, it's a slippery slope. Are they trying to take your proprty from you? What is it the government is trying to accomplish?
    What I want to believe is that they're trying to keep harmful things out of the wrong hands. The bigger question is, what constitutes the wrong hands and who decides it? There's new talk about arming teachers and arming pilots and having guards at schools. The first thing that popped into MY head was What's keeping the teachers or pilots or guards from snapping and doing the same thing these other gunmen are doing? Soldiers, marines, sailors, all trained and educated in how to properly use their weapons. Anybody besides me remember shootings on military bases?
    It's a complicated thing. Legally, because of the constitution, you can't take the guns from those who legally obtained and maintain them. The problem is, you cannot foresee who will use a weapon for what. What about the guy who uses his for hunting? Or competition? Or just popping bottles in the backyard? What about the guy who has a collection he has never even fired? How can you differentiate between one of them, and the guy with a collection in his apartment planning on wiping out everyone at the local mall? What if that person, over time, obtained all their weapons LEGALLY, registered every single one of them, maintains permits for every single one of them... and then has a bad day and takes out everyone on the subway? This isn't a guy who went and bought his weapons in a back alley. I'm talking a legal gun owner, the same as Adam Lanza's mother.
    Legislation may make it more difficult to get firearms NOW. What about the ones already out there, the legal and illegal ones? I'll give you an example of something. When I started working nights, my brother-in-law was uncomfortable with the idea of my wife being home alone in our house. He wanted to give her a gun to protect herself, just in case. It would be his, legally obtained, legally registered, legally owned. In HIS name. She refused, simply because she was uncomfortable with a gun in the house, and for good reason. Studies, stats, and records show that a gun is more likely to be used on its owner than on an intruder. Not to say it doesn't happen, but most often a gun owner will accidentally shoot themselves while performing routine cleaning rather than shooting an intruder or an intruder shooting them.
    So what do we do? I don't believe legislation will solve the problem. I don't know what will. The problem is not the guns, the problem is US. It doesn't matter if a gun is "legal" or not. If someone's going to shoot another person, it doesn't matter if the gun is legal or not. It's human nature to destroy each other. Horrible, sad, frightening, but true. Cain killed Abel before there were laws regarding homicide. People have been killing each other since there were people, and I challenge anyone to find me the Sword And Spear Control Laws from medeival Britain. To quote Eddie Izzard, "Guns don't kill people, people do, but I think the gun helps. You're not gonna kill too many people just standing there going BANG!"