Saturday, March 24, 2012

165 guns?!

I have been absent from the blogging world for a little while. Last Tuesday I received a phone call asking if I was interested in coming in for an editing test for a temp-to-perm job (I had missed the email about this from the day before). The next day (Wednesday), I took the test, had a brief interview, and then found out that evening I did well enough to warrant a second interview the following week. The morning after (Thursday), I received another email asking if I could instead come in on Tuesday to start a project. Just a day later (Friday), I was asked if I could come in on Monday instead. So I did, and I spent several days this week working on the project, mostly in the office and some at home. I don't know what will come of this; it is fast-paced, and I have been away from the business world and a daily commute for three (!) years. And there is a lot to absorb. But whatever shall be, shall be.

But back to my post title.

On the news last night was a report of a man who upon being visited by his probation officer admitted to having 165 guns in his house, about half of which had a fully loaded round in the chamber.

Let that sink in for a moment.

165 guns, about 80 of which were loaded

As with many other issues, I have mixed feelings on guns. I don't hunt, but I eat meat (deer, duck, you name it), so I am okay with hunters owning and using their arms. I can understand people wanting to protect themselves, though I would never do it that way. (As I have mentioned before, when I was a kid, my dad owned pharmacy and would sometimes fill a prescription at night, always taking his gun with him but fortunately never using it.)

But I cannot imagine even the most zealous NRA or gun-rights supporter would think it is remotely acceptable to own that many guns. Or even 16 guns. Really, I can't even justify six, even if you hunt various game. But what do I know?

I am fairly certain that stricter gun laws will not help to keep guns out of criminals' hands, but I am starting to lean more in that direction. To the best of my knowledge there is no limit as to the number of guns one can own, but I sure as heck think there should be. Even if this guy had not been on probation, I can come up with no rational reason as to why he or anyone else needs to own dozens and dozens of guns.

Anyone? Anyone?


bluzdude said...

I'm really a "gun" guy either. It seems like there's a portion of the population that practically have a gun fetish. No one needs that many guns, unless they're defending the Alamo, circa the 1800s.

I just hope for that guy's sake that he doesn't have any kids in the house. That's a recipe for tragedy.

chris h. said...

It's scary that someone on PROBATION has that many guns (or any guns), but I have a hard time saying you can limit how many guns are permissible. Cars are dangerous, knives are dangerous, baseball bats are dangerous -- limit those too? The problem is not being able to distinguish between a responsible owner (of anything potentially lethal) and a disaster waiting to happen. I don't know how you fix that.

Facie said...

Bluz: Good point about the kids. I have no idea.

Chris: Good point. Someone who has 165 may never do the harm that another with only gun does. Still don't get it, though.