Jay, Isn't it possible that the program is designed to prevent any of these guns from getting into the wrong hands? "
...
"Those weapons were obviously not doing anyone any good, but they were waiting for the odd burglar to introduce them into the black market. That won't happen now.
Where to begin?
First off, this needs immediate addressing: "Those weapons were obviously not doing anyone any good" They also weren't doing anyone any bad, either. They are firearms. They are inanimate objects utterly incapable of performing acts of good or evil. They are nothing more than chunks of metal and wood engineered for a specific purpose. Whether that purpose is good, evil, or morally neutral is 100% dependent on the human employing said tool.
There's a word for this line of thought: Deodand. It was a portion of old English law that stipulated that an instrument used in the death of a person was forfeit and should be destroyed; that there was inherit evil in the tool used.
Have we not progressed beyond the Middle Ages?
Secondly, why not sell the guns to licensed gun owners? It could raise money for the community, or give the proceeds to a local charity, or bring in a helluva lot more money than selling the guns for scrap, that's for damn sure. There's a lot of history in those inanimate chunks of metal and wood - what a shameful, disgraceful waste to destroy them simply to "keep them out of the hands of bad guys".
I'm pretty darn certain that they won't fall into the wrong hands sitting in my gun safe.
Lastly, using that same logic gets us to complete gun bans - we can't allow people to own guns because someone might break in and steal them. When we start destroying inanimate objects based on nothing more than the possibility that someone might misuse them, well, brother, I don't want to be a part of that world.
Let me pose another scenario: Granny fails her eye test. Her license is voided. She's got a perfectly good 2004 Buick LeSabre sitting in her driveway.
Do we destroy that Buick because someone might drive it while intoxicated and hit someone?
Propose that, and see how quickly you get laughed off the stage.
Nope. Sorry. Ain't gonna fly. It's only certain politically incorrect inanimate objects that face the cutter's torch. And I call bullshit on that practice.
That is all.
3 comments:
What about adult toys? I'm pretty damn sure religious conservatives on the other side of the political aisle would claim they don't do anyone any good and only lead to the moral degradation of society.
Just think of the horror that could ensue if some hormonal young adults (or even teenagers) got a hold of them.
I wonder if MikeB would support a program aimed at the destruction of privately owned sex toys? I'm guessing not, but the rationale (or lack thereof) would be the same. It basically centers around "I don't like those icky things! Let's get rid of them!"
Perhaps the program would be better if the question it tried to answer was "Isn't it possible... to prevent any of the wrong hands from getting onto these guns?" Prison's pretty good for that purpose, as is the threat of a moderate to high dosage of lead administered under the strict supervision of Mrs. Law-Abiding Gun Owner or Mr. Wears-A-Badge.
Thanks, Jay, for honoring me on your blog. I plead not guilty on the charge of assigning evil to inanimate objects. It's when they get into the wrong hands that evil happens, and I recognize that that's not the gun's fault. But let's face it; some of them do get into the wrong hands.
About selling those particular weapons to licensed gun owners, I agree totally. I have no doubt that you and your commenters and the ones who visit my blog are responsible people who have every right to own guns if you want. I'm just looking for a way to minimize the gun crimes, which I think was the intent of the program you described, even though it could have been done better.
Post a Comment