The basis of the idea of civilian gun control is that some people are less trustworthy than others. If you are a police officer you are trusted to own and carry a gun. If you are an accountant, you are not. Well, unless you are an accountant for one of the scores of government agencies that provide guns to their employees. So if you are a field engineer for the Dept of Agriculture you are trusted enough to be armed. If you are a field engineer for an oil company, you are not. If you are a case worker for the Dept of Education, you can carry a gun. If you are a case worker for the Salvation Army, you are not. This is the basis of gun control, if you work for the government, you are trustworthy. If you do not, you are not.
This baffles me. Now- police and soldiers, sure, they get special training. But isn't it the training that matters? Does the fact you work for a bureaucracy mean you are trustworthy enough to own a gun? But working for a bank, a factory or an accounting firm means you aren't? I really don't get the logic of that.
What made me think about this point is two stories I read today. One where a government didn't secure a bunch of guns, which resulted in 20,000 M-16 Assault Rifles (yes, actual assault rifles, not the rifles gun control advocates like to label "assault weapons" in the US). The other, where a government agency in my state, a police agency even, handed over private information on hundreds of thousands of people in disregard for the law.
But if you follow the logic of gun control advocates, only these people are trustworthy enough to own and carry firearms.
No comments:
Post a Comment