Paying the Price For Freedom

IT IS IRONIC that the bullet which Killed Charlie Kirk came from the rifle of a lone gunman, unaffiliated with any gang, at the precise moment when Mr. Kirk was attemtping, while answering questions during a speech he was making, to ascribe gun violence in America to gang related activity. The questioner wondered about Charlie's reaction to masss murders and random gun violence in America generally, and asked him about it. How much gun violence in America is related to gang activity?, Kirk replied to the questioner, answering a question with a question. His evident intent was to minimize the perpetual gun violence epidemic in the United States by blaming the bulk of it on violent, competing gangs. We will, of course, never know for sure. What we can know for sure is that he was dead wrong, no pun intended. That boat simply will not float. Of the tens of thousands of Americans killed each year by bullets, an overwhelming percentage of them are killed by people they know well, often friends, former friends, family members, or estranged romantic interests, none of whom have anything to do with gangs. Drug deals, sometimes gang related, gone bad. Lover's quarrels. Disputes over parking spaces or property rights. Even road rage. The common denominator is that all of these disputes could have been resolved fairly easily by cool heads and calm, well reasoned negotiations, but were not. In almost every case,the killer calms down later and regrets his or her violent behavior, but by then its too late. The single greatest motivater is the passing passions of the moment; pre planned gun play is far less common. There are more guns in America than people. Many homes are filled with dozens of them. My grandfather, an avid gun owner and hunter,is said to have said that "If you put a gun in a man's hand, the first thing he wants to do is use it." We do indeed want to use our guns. I loved firing a BB gun and a twenty two rifle as a kid. I still sometimes think about getting a new set of guns, and going back to my childhood target practice hobby. We had a gang of twelve year olds walking around the neighborhood shooting up everything in sight, but wer never deterred or even approached by a single adult of police officer while in the act. Today, I would never do that. I don't have enough seventy year old friends to form a street gang. In today's word we would be in jail, or juvenile detention. Perhaps we should have been back then. The traditional conservative viewpoint is that America is a safer place when the citizenry is well armed. The more guns people carry in public, the more good guys with guns to stop a potential serial killer or mass murderer dead in his tracks. This, of course,is insanity. Its usually the "good people with guns" who do the shooting, again, from momentary passion. Now, in evident respect for Charlie Kirk, his stated position on gun ownerhsip and gun violence, which departs drastically from the "the more guns the better" nonsense, seems to be gaining popularity. "A few" deaths by gun fire is the price, an acceptable price, we pay for our sacred second amendment rights. Kirk never said what he meant precisely by "a few". (Isn't one too many?). Now he never will. He seems to have spilled the beans,so to speak, to have divulged a poorly kept secret; that guns, while in theory saving lives and preventing violence, in fact do quite the opposite. Widespread gun ownership, the second amendment itself, are the cause of gun related killings. If nobody had a gun, nobody would die by a gun. But of course, only the bad guys, whoever they , would have guns. The best kept secret of all is that is is we good guys who are the bad guys.