Gun Control

This whole Littleton, CO high school shooting incident is spawning some ugly things after the fact. It’s not enough that something terrible happened, we have to pollute the healing process too. Or maybe it’s me. Perhaps the things that help other people just sit wrong with me.

Today I was visiting someone’s web site. It wasn’t a very good one, but it contained one item which caught my eye: a banner for another web site, I have no problem with someone creating a site for something like that, but I found some inquiries on the site from the webmaster about weather or not people would be offended if they were to sell t-shirts and CDs to help offset the cost of the site.


The House of Rapp has every account feature known to man, and it costs me about $20 per month. Are you going to tell me that kind of expense needs offsetting? And that no internet service provider would come forward to donate web space after such a highly publicized tragedy? Some people are selling copies of memorial services, poems, and music. There’s even a “Columbine High School Tragedy Web Ring”. I know they’re not all out there to make a dollar, but there have been some noises in that direction, and it bothers me. One person has even started a movement to get a special Columbine Beanie Baby created.

The thing that really irritates me is the gun control bill that President Clinton is sending to Congress. Why must one person’s loss be another person’s opportunity for political gain? Bill Clinton is smart enough to know that gun control laws are not responsible for the shooting, but this is a chance to push an agenda, to play the political games he’s always squinting into the camera and wagging his finger against. It’s very hypocritical. It’s also very Clinton.

Guns are like cars. They are both necessary, yet can kill so easily. And if someone wants to get one bad enough, there is no law you can pass which will stop them. You could install a Lojack, Club, car alarm, kill switch, and a half dozen other theft-prevention items on your car, and if a thief wants your vehicle badly enough he will get it every single time. Guns are the same way. Pass all the laws you want, but if a twisted kid wants to kill his classmates he will find a way. Even without the guns, Harris and Klebold had homemade bombs, grenades, and other weaponry made from common household items. They spent twelve months planning this attack. Do you really think tighter gun laws would have prevented this or discouraged them?

One might argue I’m creating a false analogy, that guns are not the necessary, useful items in modern society that automobiles are. Tell that to NATO troops in Europe, or to a World War II veteran. Or to someone whose home was robbed. Or to a woman who was raped.

I do agree that automatic, and even semi-automatic, weapons have no place in the hands of the general public. They’re not necessary for sport hunting or self defense, as any single action weapon will kill whatever it hits. So ban those. Oh wait–they already are banned.

But that doesn’t matter to Clinton. He can improve his legacy by taking advantage of public emotion following a murderous rampage. Will we also restrict freedom of speech on the internet? Never mind the fact that anyone who publishes bomb making instructions is already criminally liable of conspiracy, solicitation, and aiding and abetting the perpetrators–it’s all about what the camera sees, what the sound bite will be, and how we can advance Our Great Agenda. Even after something like Columbine, that just doesn’t change, does it?

Am I wrong about Clinton? Does he really think that if a couple of laws were passed that this would not have happened? I’ve considered the possibility, but I just don’t think he’s that genuine. Sorry, Charlie.


Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox: