By Odeisel

Security. Safety. Do they have to exist on the opposite end of the spectrum? It’s a question we repeatedly ask ourselves as we become increasingly vulnerable to random acts of mass violence. We stand barefoot on dirty airport floors on long lines to get x-rayed wondering fuming and exasperated at the extended wait. Security is an inconvenience until you’re in the movies and some gunman sprays the place. Or you’re at a market and some bomber wants to blow the place up. I don’t know about any of you, but I always pay attention to exits and escape routes. Perhaps that’s from reading too many comics, but unfortunately, the most fantastic horrors have a way of becoming all too real.

A few days ago, gunman Adam Lanza walked into an elementary school and murdered 27 people, 20 of them children,squeezing off over 100 rounds of ammunition. Think about that. Not a disgruntled high school kid bent on revenge going after a subset of his schoolmates, but some random person unloading on kindergartners. This is so far past Columbine’s Trench Coat Mafia that it isn’t in the rearview mirror. And this time there’s no jealous rage, no possible brain damage from a concussion and no action movie with which to place blame. And of course, the shooter is dead, leaving more questions than answers. He fired a few rounds into his mother’s face before his rampage so there were obviously issues. Recent reports say Lanza had Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, which somes with medication and possible side effects, which may have contributed to the incident.

So how much IS security worth? Is it time to look at our Constitutional right to bear arms? In crimes of passion and intimate settings, I suppose the weapon doesn’t matter. Stabbing strangling bludgeoning is going to happen at that point. But when you consider the recent history of mass slayings, you have to wonder how much of that damage could have been mitigated by weapons with significantly less reach and ease of use.

We don’t even need horrific tragedies such as this to make the case. The City of Chicago has been little more than a war zone with gang violence. Ditto places like New Orleans and South Central Los Angeles. But the victims of that gunfire are thought of as combatants, that is, unless a bystander gets the bullet.

The gun lobby is strong, and there are those, with a legitimate argument, who say that people are the problem and not guns. They have very reasonable and rational arguments to defend their right. And it’s always a right, until you or your loved one are on the wrong end of the muzzle. I’ve been there and thank heavens they weren’t really about it or I’d be toast. When you’re on that wrong end, you think of so many things you could have done to avoid it. You should have made a left instead of a right. You could have taken your ass home. You should have avoided that neighborhood. But what do 20 first graders think when they are on the wrong end of the muzzle and they didn’t do shit but wake up and get taken to school? Your guess is as good as mine.

Is freedom worth the risk? Is security worth the hassle? I don’t know how to quantify that. I don’t own a gun but since I moved to the south, I’ve thought own a gun is based on the idea that I can have one and not be a criminal. But on a certain level, if you have to worry about people kicking in that door waving the .44, you should probably move to a safer hood if you can. It ain’t always that easy but chances are your gun will be raising while theirs is blazing if they are the aggressor. When you’re on the wrong side of the muzzle, it doesn’t really matter. R.I.P. to all the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Follow Us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/planetill

Become a citizen of Planet Ill. Join our Forums

Join Us on the Planet Ill Facebook Group for more discussion

Follow us on Networked Blogs