A MODEST PROPOSAL
FOR PROTECTING THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA BY RIDDING THE EXISTENCE OF FIREARMS, AND REPLACING ARMS WITH MEANS OF PROTECTION IN A SAFER MEDIUM.
It is truly a tragedy to become subject to what is often the result of the existence of firearms within our society. Crimes: robbery, murder, theft, are often an element in the usage of firearms. Guns kill people, people most certainly do not kill other people. Of course, people who commit crimes should not be allowed to own a firearm, but, truthfully, hunters and recreation shooters shouldn’t be able to either. If violent people are not allowed to keep arms, then everyday men shouldn’t be allowed to either. They have just as much potential as anyone else to snap. Firearms and their availability are truly a hazard to society, in all aspects. Firearms do not only bring physical danger, but mental ones as well. There is always much political turmoil and dispute with firearms, and that is why firearms and other kinds of dangerous weaponry will be eliminated under my proposal.
I make a modest proposal, that all firearms are to be eliminated from all parameters of our society. Instead, the following is to be instilled for our people: in the case of criminals, no, we will not completely take away their weaponry, but bring them together that is. Rather than restricting the activity of criminals, we will encourage the usage of firearms, however, this encouragement will only be administered with two armed criminals in padded room. Who is to say that we cannot eliminate crime? As for hunters and recreational shooters, their firearms will indeed be confiscated in a peaceful manner, and they will be given a large fishing net; effective and safe. The only alteration that would need to be made to their lifestyle is possibly training in to increase personal speed. Now, it is understandable that there would probably be concern about these newly instilled methods, but the benefits most certainly outweigh what is bad about the changes. There will no longer be any possibility for death or destruction by way of flying bullets.
Lack of firearms will also greatly benefit society in many other ways besides ridding danger. An abundance of paper will be saved because there will be less legal documents that would need to be drawn up for the ownership, transportation, and purchase of a firearm. Pollution will be lessened because there would be less factories running, producing smog, then would have been running if firearm were being produced. This modest proposal will be having a positive impact on the environment as well.
There is no need to worry as to what the military will be using, as all wars will be eliminate with the passage of this modest proposal. If the military needs to stay in their area of conduct, then they will be readily supplied with water guns; not destructive but it still gets the point across. It would be completely illogical and irrational to think that possibly guns could exist in society without the application of probable laws. Laws are more often than not, broken, and that is why the temptation should become eliminated altogether.
Elimination of firearms is only for the best because it will solve all of the firearm’s potential problems and dangers. This is a revolutionary idea that is absolutely sure to be positive and interesting for all.
*Dislcaimer *I'm not very skilled in deerhunting with a fishing net :)
3 comments:
Trapshooter,
If I understand your satire correctly, you are saying hunters and other honest, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess guns. Theoretically, law-abiding citizens would not use their weapons in a violent crime, but how would we determine who is and is not fit to carry a weapon? I do remind you that the massacres at Binghamton and Virginia Tech were committed using legally procured weapons. Clearly, the system of regulating gun possession will fail in certain cases through legitimate oversight (such as the aforementioned cases) or through willful negligence (hence “illegal” gun purchases). How, then, given the clear shortcomings of the protective measures, can we justify the production and sale of weapons to private citizens? How do the benefits outweigh the losses?
I had a little trouble reading this proposal; some of your word choices might be a little off, but it is an interesting mocking of gun opponents, nonetheless.
The Monk,
I am so very happy that you understood the point that I was trying to get across. I have no problem with you saying you had some trouble reading it...I must admit that I did struggle in trying to express my ideas in a tactful way.
You ask "But how would we determine who is and is not fit to carry a weapon?" In our state, before an individual is allowed to purchase firearms they must apply for a Firearms Purchaser's I.D. through the State Police. Before it is granted, the Police conduct thourough background investigation, collection of references, and other personal information. This is the case for "law abiding" citizens. However, as you have stated, I do agree that this system will fail when it comes to illegal gun purchases. I also understand that guns acquired legally still have the potential for harm by its owners. As much as I am an advocate for gun ownership, I will never deny the fact that there is potential for harm. There is potential for harm in any aspect of our lives. My idea on the situation is that we should not instill restriction (not allowing private gun ownership) so that the variability can be combated. As much as there is a chance for harm, allowed should be a chance for some to defend themselves in their home, and to enjoy outdoor recreational shooting sports. Long story short :) ...there should not be pursuance of things such as gun bans because anything can really happen. We cannot premeditate the bad things that can happen within our society.
How to the benefits outweight the losses?...I really don't know the answer to that question, but as said...I feel that if citizens are always allowed to protect themselves and maintain the privilege of gun ownership, then there will be a chance for those who properly utilize this privilege to combat those who abuse it.
Though we may not agree, I feel better that we had the conversation. Thank you, Trapshooting Girl.
Post a Comment