The Mass Shooting Problem Solved At Last | United States |Axisoflogic.com

The Mass Shooting Problem Solved At Last, And the Answer Was Always Right Under Our Noses

Just when it began to seem as though there was no possible solution to the problem of mass shootings in America, the patriotic folks at the National Rifle Association, of all people, put forth a series of ideas that immediately became popular with the nation’s perpetually impotent lawmakers, especially those members of the Republican Party who automatically liked and approved of nearly anything ever advocated by the NRA.

Stepping back to take a longer view, the social scientists in the National Rifle Association noted that a great many of the mass shooting events were taking place in schools, churches, movie houses, and other places where people gathered in large numbers. Rather than tamper with their organization’s rather bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, they reasoned, how much simpler and wiser it would be to simply draft laws that made it harder for people to gather in the kinds of places where they were likely to get shot in large numbers. If, as the NRA argued, we would merely stop clustering up in groups, we could end our nation’s embarrassing propensity for frequent shooting episodes that left so many people dead or maimed in public places.

American exceptionalism, the NRA argued, didn’t have to include how exceptional we were at creating and preserving the conditions that made it so likely for citizens to be shot up when they went to the movies. Being exceptional about our tolerance for having our kids killed while learning the alphabet, the NRA sagely agreed, was the kind of exceptionalism that did us little credit as a country, though it did, they argued speak well of our willingness to pay the price for our principles, especially if that price was being paid by black people at prayer, or other people’s kids in schools.

In the last 13 years of this century, our country has suffered more than 141,000 homicide deaths, an exceptionally high number. They don’t call us “exceptional” for nothing, after all. According to the NRA, lots of those people probably had it coming in one way or another. Among the victims of American mayhem and murder, their spokesmen said, there were almost certain to have been unfaithful wives, drug dealers, abusive spouses, Mafiosi, and assorted assholes included in that admittedly high number. So, they argued, as bad as it seemed, it really wasn’t all bad.

And all those other accidental deaths we chalked up to careless handling of firearms surely took out a lot of people who were bringing down our collective IQ. Thus, the NRA argued, guns were significantly enhancing the survival of the fittest, making the process of evolution quicker and more effective. Those dumb asses who couldn’t figure out how to stay safe around firearms really shouldn’t be procreating, anyhow. Though it may seem callous to say so, the NRA said, we were often better off without those accident prone gun owners.

So, it was clear that the proliferation of guns, and the high number of gun deaths in the U.S. came with a great number of benefits often discounted by bleeding heart liberals. The National Rifle Association, along with other pro-gun groups, wanted the American people to keep in mind that hardly anything good came without costs. Ice cream was great, but it could make you fat. Sex was popular, but it could lead to bad relationships, or put people at risk of STDs. And yes, guns did, on occasion, kill people who may not have needed killing, it was clear that automobiles took far more lives, and no one wanted to outlaw cars.

Besides, as the gun groups hastened to say, in a country where there was a gun in circulation for every man, woman, and child, there really was no way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone—crazy or sane, well-intentioned or evil, criminal or law-abiding—who wanted one. Or ten.

And, as the brother of a former U.S. president also reminded us, we shouldn’t get so upset every damn time we experience one of the mass shooting events because “stuff happens,” and the idea that there is anything whatsoever that could be done to keep stuff from happening was just ridiculous. And it was especially ridiculous to believe that government, of all things, could ever keep stuff from happening.

All the other Republican candidates for POTUS also agreed with Jeb Bush that absolutely nothing at all could be done, and that, as they had said so often, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. And surely we wouldn’t want that, now would we? When nothing can be done, the best thing to do is nothing at all. Their logic was inarguable. After all, the Sheriff of Douglas County, Oregon, the place where the most recent big school shooting had occurred, had written to Vice President Joe Biden in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings, stating categorically that he wouldn’t enforce any restrictions on gun ownership that might conflict with his personal interpretation of the Constitution. So, even if we, as a nation, through our legislative process, were to come up with some ideas that might work, there were lots of people in law enforcement who would refrain from enforcing laws enacted to save the lives of students and teachers.

But, if we really, really wanted to cut down on the numbers of people we lose each year (or each month) to mass shootings, then the obvious thing to do was to impose restrictions on the places where Americans gather in large numbers. If we were to outlaw movie theaters, churches, and schools, the NRA argued, just think of how many lives could be spared. And, in the age of telecommunications and handheld tech devices, there was little reason to go out anymore, anyway. Shopping was more expeditiously done through Amazon, for instance, and it offered the added benefit of cutting down on fossil fuel consumption running back and forth to the stores, an argument that was bound to be popular with all those gun-control worshipping liberals. Worship, too, was better done in the privacy of one’s own home, either watching evangelists on television, or sharing the spirit of the Lord with likeminded co-religionists in chatrooms and with Facebook friends. Best of all, as educational bureaucrats had demonstrated, teaching and learning were activities best conducted without contact between teachers and students, where information was shared via “distance learning,” where students “interacted” through electronic media to receive instruction and take tests. With the human element eliminated, the threat of violence was nearly entirely removed from the process of education.

In order to push back against the standard liberal calls for background checks for wannabe gun owners, or the even more intrusive proposals to restrict gun ownership, the people who put the 2nd Amendment ahead of all other American rights and privileges launched a campaign best expressed in the bumper sticker that soon came to be seen on pickup trucks from sea to shining sea, all bearing the slogan “Just Stay Home.”

The idea soon swept the nation. Even liberals began to think it was a pretty good idea. After all, who would want to risk going anywhere in a country like this one? Better to fort up, lock the doors, check your ammo, and keep your powder dry. Or, as Donald Trump, the front runner in the Republican primary, reminded us: “going out is for losers.”

Beyond that, the NRA recommended that, should people absolutely have to venture out from the safety of their homes, they should a) be heavily armed, and b) try to slim down. As their spokesman explained, overweight Americans were, in large part, responsible for their own deaths or injury because they presented targets that were difficult to miss even by the most agitated and nervous of the shooters who were driven to the kinds of acts that were so upsetting to anti-gun liberals everywhere.

To paraphrase former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, “shit happens,” and the best way for Americans to protect themselves is to stay home, far from where the shit is more likely to hit the fan.

Source URL