20080303

nongunlawwoes

I was cleaning out an email account (well, partially cleaning out) and came across some recent email alerts from Gun Owners of Utah. I really don't like what they've done there. I refer specifically to GOUtah's attitude to Henry's Law (the attempt to make animal torture a felony) and the Dating Violence Bill (to create a legal mechanism for people to obtain protective orders on people they've had a relationship with but haven't actually lived with.)

I've found myself drifting away from my former political affiliations. I am still for gun rights, but I'm not inclined to be belligerent about it as I once was.

Anyway, on these recent legislative issues, it's like the gun group are so hair trigger on some little details, they've lost sight of the broader message and goals.

We'll start with Henry's Law, shall we? The law does not specifically address firearms, but GOUtah wanted everyone to vote down this "anti-gun" bill because it might deprive animal torturers of their right to bear arms.
Yeah, think about that a minute.
So, most pro-gun folks would agree we've got a few useful control systems in place. You want to buy a gun, you get an instant background check, which filters out those with histories of violent felonies or danger-to-self-and-others-type mental illnesses. GOUtah seem to object to the idea that dismembering a dog or squeezing gerbils 'til they pop should be added to the list of violent felonies we watch out for. If you find provisions of a law dangerously vague (as they claimed), you work to address the vagueness. If after honest effort, it's impossible to fix the vagueness, then you shut the law itself down. But overzealous gun folks in Utah made it look like they support animal torture. This in light of the fact that there's a huge amount of evidence that cruelty to nonhuman animals reliably predicts cruelty to humans. Psychopaths essentially practice on nonhuman animals until they can build up the courage to apply their urges to humans. Even if we're not talking out-and-out serial killers, someone with a sociopathic lack of empathy and an angry streak, someone inclined to take it out on nonhuman animals, is almost certainly unsafe around h. sapiens as well. I heard tell that at least one Utah State legislator was waxing on about how throwing cats in a bag and then drowning them is just perfectly normal behavior lots of good people do, and certainly no one should be stripped of gun rights for it. Insanity like that can only weaken the RKBA cause.

Then on the Dating Violence thing. Here, I can at least comprehend the logic. In principle, no one should be disarmed without a proper trial for their crimes. Still, there is a clear social need for people to be able to obtain formal legal protection from former relationships turned dangerous. Current law only allows it for those who've actually married or cohabitated, but the dangerous control freaks don't generally need life under the same roof to make them shed their charming exteriors.
If there are concerns it will be applied unjustly to innocents, those details can be addressed and fixed. But don't make it look like pro-gunners are also in favor of domineering obsessive stalkers, or you lose the gun rights fight forever.
The specter of the guy who seems so nice at first but turns dangerous and controlling after a time is all too real, and you don't want to look like you're on his side. As with animal torturers and people who think the archangel of jello wants them to burn down buildings, control-freak obsessed stalkers are on most folks' list of people we assume can't be trusted with lethal weaponry.

I consider it a proper function of universal education to show all girls growing up that there are more options available to them than serving someone else's will, and to instill self-respect in them so that they will absolutely never want to "graciously submit." Then all the guys sick enough to want their girlfriends and wives to be subservient to them will be eternally frustrated, never achieve their captain-of-the-household dreams, live in misery, and die alone as they deserve. Or we can use universal education to instill enough respect and morality in boys growing up so that they realize authoritarianism is absolutely and universally evil, and that all relationships are among equals. Best of all, we can instill all these things in all children wherever they fall on the sex and gender spectra.

1 comment:

Sra said...

Great post. You've touched on something very important: that there is a lot more gray area in the world than people might think, and that means that people MUST think in order to tackle issues within a gray area. We can't just pigeon hole everything and then let our dogma process our beliefs and opinions. I'm considerably more reserved about gun rights than you are, because they make me uncomfortable, even when they are used "benevolently" (if there is such a gun use). Having said that, I don't believe guns should be entirely restricted, even though I think a bit more control is warranted. But to go to either extreme and say that guns are always bad or that everyone should have unrestricted access to guns would be to miss the large gray area associated with this issue. Sounds like GOUtah is so blinded by their dogma that they are missing the larger point of those bills. And you're absolutely right that they are making a mistake in allowing themselves to seem pro animal cruelty and pro relationship violence. They need to take a serious step back and think before they swing their political fists.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Additionally, for clarification I grant that "unauthorized commercial use" generally only applies if the work itself is the object of exchange, and specifically that a site with click-through or advertising income is welcome to share it (attrib, no-deriv, otherwise non-com), so long as the work shared is openly available to all and not subject to sale or paid access. Any elements of my works that might be original to others are Fair Use, and you are left to your own to make sure your own use of them is likewise.