World News Wednesday: A Discussion

I normally try to fly my World News Wednesday posts past one person or another, and this week, I decided to show you a conversation between myself and Rachel for this weeks post. Feel free to join in the discussion in the comments section. Oh, and the opinions expressed in that conversation do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this blog or its authors (that's a joke).

me: gun control yes or no?:

Rachel: ok, this is why i don't talk about my thoughts on it a lot, b/c i hate the thought of hurting someone who's been through something like this

but since it's us...

it's not like it was an accident... that boy grabbed his gun and shot her... that's messed up, but i don't think gun laws would have prevented it... know what i mean?

me: in a sense yes, but if they had an age restriction, or laws about keeping guns locked away, maybe it would have been helped

Rachel: or if his parents weren't morons and kept the gun locked in a gun case...

me: thats my big thing

its the parents responsiblity

Rachel: yeah, i mean you know what pisses me off the most?

any freaking person can have a baby, but you need a license just to drive a car

BUT... i would never want the gov to regulate that mess... it's crazy

and that's how i feel about gun laws... i hate it, but the gov can't fix people who are already broken :(

me: /agree

me: i know that the gov cant really fix people, but guns in particular are such a big danger, that regulation of them should be tightly watched

Rachel: i disagree, b/c people are going to get guns if they want them

the tighter the gov control, the larger the black market and the more crime that arises from it... see "drugs"

but, stories like this one actually put holes in my argument though... this kid wasn't some criminal on the street... so it's definitely different

me: the black market argument is a good one, although im not talking about outlawing guns as a whole (like drugs are), but instead just making it more difficult for people (particularly the young) to get access

yes, there will always be a way to get something if you really want it, but those people are (theoretically) so messed up anyway, that they will do what they were going to do no matter what the laws

so, this is not a punishment type law, but more of a prevention/safety based law

imo

Rachel: yeah, that's a good point too

but is it the gov's job to protect us? i think about that a lot

me: in a sense, yes... isnt that what its there for?

i.e. military, police

Rachel: yeah, that stuff definitely... but there has to be a line

me: yeah

Rachel: it's not the gov's job to enforce morals or rule at such a granular level

me: explain, plz

Rachel: and gun laws are a moral issue... b/c it affects people who buy guns for their 11-year olds to take them hunting (yes, that's the wilmer in me talking)

that's a parent's call, not the gov's

but some parents suck!

me: but we regulate what age you can drive a car, and it's the same sort of thing, why can we not regulate the age of getting a gun?

i know that they'd like to take kids hunting, but take them bow hunting up until that age

because, a lot of kids don't understand the power of their weapon, and parents might not know how to explain it right

Rachel: you drive cars on gov-paid roads ;)

me: you hunt in gov. owned property;)

Rachel: not necessarily

some people hunt in their houses apparently... ok that was morbid, sorry

me: did the gov not technically buy the land (albeit immorally) from the native americans, and other countries?

Rachel: yeah, but you own it to a point...the gov doesn't maintain it like they maintain roads

me: yeah

Rachel: all kidding aside, the driving age requirement is up for grabs too... look at MS - you can drive at 15 there

i think you're right - it's the same kind of argument... the difference is volume... every american owns a car, but not everyone owns a gun

me: yeah, driving ages should be flexible based on a kid's maturity but its hard to measure that

Rachel: definitely

me: especially governmentally... and i think its the same issue between both types of laws

ok, so i think this whole argument just wrote tomorrow's WNW for me

So, what do you think? Do Rachel and I make any valid points, or are we just going in circles?