Save Humanity From Itself

How to restrict and/or ban firearms to protect innocent lives that does not infringe upon law-abiding citizens’ constitutional rights versus why someone with no apparent warning signs or violent history decides to commit horrific mass murder in the first place? This is the perpetually controversial debate, and maybe there is no comprehensive answer to the latter question. Before we yet again have that debate, though, is it impossible to refrain, no matter how brief, from the spewing of differing worldviews, political agendas and speculative vitriol out of respect to victims, families and friends? The act committed is horrible enough without the disgusting entropic inhumanity that oftentimes accompanies it in the immediate aftermath.

Now that some of us have taken that pause, what exactly could have prevented yet another latest mass shooting? More gun control laws? More background checks? According to official reports, like numerous incidents before it, none seemingly could or would have prevented the tragedy as no obvious red flags presented themselves. Never missing an opportunity, this fact has not stopped politicians and pundits from advocating such non sequitur measures. If the forest is burning down, is it logical to continue throwing water on a camp fire that did not start it? What might have prevented the forest fire in the first place? Environmental impact aside, the forest, like the Second Amendment that anti-gun activists find abhorrent, could have been bulldozed and obliterated to mitigate such incidents...but then there would be no forest in order to see the trees. Not every incident is endemically comparable to every other one, and any systemic blanket comparison is foolish in a blind effort to implement any further restrictions or changes to the law without understanding the root cause(s).

This does not negate the necessity of any reasonable measures that can be and, in many cases, currently are applicable. After all, bans and restrictions on camp fires exist for susceptible wooded areas; even so, this does not mean everyone obeys the laws or rules. The same is true with gun control. Now, you probably are thinking, and granted rightly so, that forest fires - whether naturally occurring or accidental - and mass murder are not even on the same level. Victims of gun violence are family, friends, neighbors and, probably for the most part, strangers, while forest fires do not cause mindless slaughter...except to the animals, insects, plants, trees, etc, that live there and die because of them. Any senseless loss of life is tragic, though, no? Or, is there an arbitrary, sliding scale on what constitutes an acceptable and unacceptable loss, simply because we, as sentient beings, identify more with humancentrist tragedy? Perhaps this is why politicians who advance stricter gun control have no issue with allowing the government-sanctioned slaughter of endangered species, like wolves, even as scientists explore the cosmos for the most basic forms of microscopic life.

The point is that until the mindset of humanity as a whole is enlightened to appreciate all life - especially in regions throughout the world where ethnic cleansing and mass genocide are prevalent - there never can be a comprehensive appreciation for any life on an individual level. No matter how much gun control legislation is implemented - even outright weapons confiscation that anti-gun activists preach, because to what would that extend and entail - the profound issue is individual, sentient beings who willingly take another life without conscience, remorse or repentance. The enduring failure to grasp this inherent concept will continue to prevent us from seeing the forest for the trees. That is the real tragedy, which will haunt us until the next one.

©2017 Steve Sagarra