After having laughed with “Conservatives Have Their Worst Week Ever” By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone - 24 January 12 - RSN - I believe our sights are way off:

Right and Privilege - Guns are Societies’ way of emphasizing the dead-solid-dumb ease of achieving the lethal side of stupid. Whether you ignore the issue or take a rabid stand on “either” of the many sides, no one is exempt. Just as stupidity, ignorance and stubbornness are clearly equal opportunity, so too are weapons, and they can reduce even the brightest amongst us to stand up proudly and steadfastly for the irrational.

Our world is resplendent with deep, ironic humor, and shoveling it to the surface and splaying its patterns is so much more of a cultural healing process than trying to defend the indefensible; and yet, neither approach seems to really work to focus good minds from all walks onto collaborative solutions. Let’s face it, we just don’t play well together, and really never will. It is also true that we play less well when it comes to, for instance, guns; however, that is probably only .01% of the problem between us all, and guns do no more than simply make the mistakes we all make more permanent.

Actually, it’s really only truly “permanent” for the very few who get butchered along the way; so, the permanence of what these weapons can visit upon an individual is only important to that devastated individual and the few who care about their existence or that the weapon might be used on their world. War has shown this to be true of us all. We eventually detach, unless our house is ground zero. We get upset when people are needlessly slaughtered and more upset if they are children, and more upset if they are members of our own culture, and more upset if they are members of our own socio-economic strata.

The problem is that as long as the word “needlessly” implies that there are times when the slaughter, collateral or not, is acceptable, necessary, not needless, then the implements of efficient destruction are not going anywhere in our lifetimes. For instance, most of the “preppers” and survivalists out there do believe that circumstances could turn neighbor against neighbor -against their general good wills. They do not want that to happen. They are just preparing for the potential, as they see it.

This attitude and understandable perspective means that each of us can be seen at best as collateral damage and at most as a target simply because we could hypothetically be a threat. That being the case, why would such folks ever give up their guns? There is no extrapolation of time, politics or circumstance that illustrates that possibility away. They are too careful, too paranoid. As for the risk to us of others getting their guns from them, they are not ever going to let their guns get into the hands of anyone other than themselves; so, there should be no worry. Right?! They are us. It reminds me of that old saying, “Everyone is weird but me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee.”

Many a collector and gun enthusiast would say that the “preppers” are perhaps extreme. Nevertheless, any great collector and appreciator of weapons generally loves to shoot and appreciate their visceral beauty and functional designs. As well, great collectors will be the first to tell you that they would defend themselves and their loved ones, if necessary, and there you have it. A law-abiding person who appreciates the nuances and not-so-subtle attributes and aesthetics of weaponry of any kind, will not generally see themselves or their collections as threats to anyone who is not a criminal. It simply will not compute. Even those in the criminal gun pipeline have the right and ability to truly appreciate and revere their best weapons. Not everything is viewed as throwaway.

Their collections are a real part of them, and you cannot convince someone that they are their own enemy. It never works. Can we say that it is not gun owners who kill, it’s their attitudes? Can we say that it is not anti-gun owners that cause the problems, it’s their attitudes as well? The truth is probably “Yes” to both, and defending either side’s perspective, at the cost of their opponent’s, is negating the rational truths in each. We should stop trying to reconcile things, which cannot be reconciled. Yet, can we really hope for common ground, like dead children, to bring us together? Probably not if simply keeping more children from dying is the only galvanizing goal. That builds respect for children and not for those who own or do not own guns.

Our society knows that they have the right to do many things as long as they do not harm and reduce the rights of others, as you go on your selfish or non-so- selfish way. When a healthy society notices that letting everyone do a particular thing causes others to lose a particular thing, say their life or ability to think or walk, that society, if healthy, tends to slowly realize that “freedom” means what works for everyone, not a few to the detriment of, or risk to, the many -or any for all that matters.

If we behaved better and more collaboratively, we would not keep narrowing what is possible and honing divisiveness to the point that only those who hurt us get to do what they wish –some by brutal happenstance and some by clever manipulation, via weapon or even financial ploy.

That means that everyone cannot have everything and do everything, if it impinges on others –on purpose or accidentally. It’s that simple. In the case of, for example, explosives, we as a society have generally said that things that, as “Beakman” said, “get really big really fast”, must be regulated because if any responsible or irresponsible person screws up and they get out of hand, someone gets dismembered or dispatched. For the unlucky recipient of those tragedies, the “right to have” did not work out well at all.

That victim, or victims, may only be a tiny, minuscule percentage of the population; nevertheless, for them it affected 100% of their life. Guns are no different, but we act as though they are exceptions to the thought that when the tree becomes a stick and then a club, the “right” of it changes hands because the intent and potential of the art then affects more than just the observer.

In society, blaming others is our way. We do not take responsibility for our actions or the risks we visit upon others. When someone has a gun, they are responsible to have it cause no harm to others. If that responsibility fails, for virtually whatever reason, then society must work together to take away that privilege. I said “privilege” because a right does not mean it will be allowed. Otherwise, for example, our right to freedom would be continually afforded to every criminal who abuses it.

You have the right to be considered to own a gun. You do not have the right for it to harm. It’s so simple that we always miss it. Also, yes, in society, you are also responsible for what the other person does or does not do who takes that weapon from you. Of course society judges to what extent you are responsible.

If someone takes a pencil from your desk and jams it through the forehead of a passer by, it is unlikely that you will be held responsible. However, if they take a gun from your drawer and pull the trigger, which then jams a bullet through that same passer by’s head, our society still takes pause and contemplates where responsibility sits for protecting the street from your possessions. If the gun had merely fallen out of your office window and hit the poor passer by on the head, you would be liable. If you had a bomb in your desk drawer intended to later blow up a stump on your ranch, and it accidentally went off, killing all your co-workers, you would be liable. Of course, and obviously so, if you were dispatched in the blast, the public would ironically probably be one closer step toward justice.

In our society, we are all responsible for what we do, own and cause, and it is curious how we back away from that fact right up until we get hurt or effected by someone else. Perspective of your role and part is always an interesting study in unfairness:

When you cannot believe that a collector of weapons can do so for the pure appreciation of the objects and their functionality, as well as to keep them out of the hands of criminals, then you will never understand why they see it is unreasonable to keep them from owning an automatic weapon or even a clip that shoots more than 10 rounds.

When, for the sake of collecting, you can discount the importance of the person’s life that is saved when a psycho is forced to change clips before continuing their killing spree, you are lost to what great society can become when it cares about the lesser and the few.

When you think you accomplish anything other than shifting points of sale, when you require only legitimate gun shop owners to register guns and do background checks, then you miss that such “half regulations” simply illustrate how absurd compromise really is in our society. Half right and half wrong can kill.

When you cannot see why someone who appreciates guns would potentially appreciate and want every type of gun, even assault weapons, then you may be putting on them the unjustified label of someone who wants them for protection or violence.

When you cannot see that someone who does not own guns is upset by statements of gun zealots who act irrational and unfair, then you may be denying what you already know which is that many people who own guns legitimately should never be allowed to have them. Placing all owners and non-owners in two categories, whether by statement or by law, is an inevitable averaging injustice.

When you worry that a “waiting period” is too long to delay to get something that you say you are collecting for life, you are lost in a timeline that means only something to yourself and never to the safety of others.

When you say that legitimate, law-abiding citizens, the ones who could pass the background checks, should not have to be subjected to register their weapons but criminals should be, you are probably afraid more of background checks than of criminals. To date, to my knowledge, no one has produced a credible case where a background check killed.

When you believe that “only guns stop guns”, then you cannot see back far enough into the process and broad enough in your mind to see that having less guns in the hands of those you wish to stop is a goal to work toward and not an absolute.

When you believe that the “right to bear arms” means so, regardless of your behavior or risk to others, then how in the world is it constitutional to keep a felon who has paid their legal debt to society from getting another gun legally? That is a “risk mitigation law”, and yet, one has to commit a heinous crime to fit such a law? Actually, we have many laws to mitigate risk. There is no constitutional right to make guns exempt from such laws.

When you believe that selling a gun any time, to anyone, without tracking ownership relieves you of the responsibility of your action, then you simply never learned the cause and effect to others of your behavior and that you are still an undeniable, just as important link in the final chain.

When, as a gun or non-gun owner, you think it is reasonable not to come to the table to try to protect each other, then your opinion to you is more important than our Societies’ welfare.

When, regardless of what you believe, you cannot see that the other side could have some very important insights on how to protect us all without compromise, then guns or not, we all lose the chance to put our best knowledge, experiences, creativity and insights to the task.

Our society has evolved to basally require humor or vitriolic personal attacks to get any play, respect or attention; and yet, even those are not enough to change issues of violence. Not so surprisingly, children’s deaths, the world over and in our own schools, are still not enough to band us together. For lack of practice, we are in fact losing that skill.

Ultimately, it is paramount we realize that we should want that other person to be able to safely own a gun or to safely not own one. Those parallel and very compatible, ancillary, integrated intents are really one goal –better together at doing and solving than we are now. Like I said, we do not play together well. We are capable of hurting each other with unjust words and actions; so, when we bring guns to the playground, why is it surprising when more than everyone’s feelings get hurt? Grow up! Oh wait, we are grown up! Maybe, grow differently for once and forever.

I love the smell of all our equal stupidity in the morning because for the rest of any day, we all at least have the chance to improve from there. Of course we tend not to improve, and that is your worst scenario “groundhog day”.

Guns are just an unfortunate, albeit lethal, coincidence of example conflict because, guns or other subjects, we can’t seem to get off this adversary path for anything toward the greater protective good. This affinity to this problematic path is never excusable in a society with potential like ours. However, it is understandable because we simply can never be expected to work together when we cannot hear each other over the ever-rapid-repeating sounds of each sides’ endless losing shots.

It is certainly logical that in all the endless topical rehash rhetoric, there is far more ammunition than real guns, but this is as endless as it is ridiculous and only proves that in spite of what everyone claims about the common good, they are perfectly content to simply protect and “load their own”.