Guns, Revisited

     It feels far too familiar to be in the wake of a massive shooting, and then to hear people attempting to explain it. Motivations are sought, a particular individual's insanity is discussed, so that how isolated this incident may be, or how uniquely American this event was, can be attested. Thus, people can ignore the fact that a man was able to legally acquire guns with which he illegally employed them in the purpose for which they were made. A day from the Utøya massacre's first anniversary, and I've lost count of how many shootings like this have happened in the past year, in The U.S., but also in Toronto, Belgium, in supposedly more peaceful countries everywhere.

     This happened because a violent person had easy access to guns. Don't tell me he would have just found illegal guns if legal ones weren't so easy to buy. That's a justification, and besides, legal ones ARE too damn easy to acquire. Colorado has disturbingly lax gun laws: 
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/20/denver-shooting-movie-premiere.html.

     But ANY access to guns is wrong. No justifications. It is becoming routine after a killing like this to hear law-abiding, non-violent (?), "leisure," gun owners defending their liberties, touting some variation of an antiquated American amendment. It's not the madness of one person that sees a dozen people murdered. It is the pervading belief that this man could have done what he did no matter what, and just because he could buy an arsenal around the corner, and drums of ammunition online, we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with tougher gun laws or restricting use and ownership, they say.
     In 2012, I say again that there is no reason to own a gun. They're not tools, they're not toys, and those who defend the right to possess them in the wake of this "singular" tragedy are trivializing the lives of the victims in that theatre. Guns should be banned, legislate it. The costs to government are meaningless when measured against the lives taken.