Number 204

 Grief, Guilt, Guns

Six innocent people are dead in Nashville, including three nine-year old children. I try to imagine what it must be like for those parents, but I can't get there. It's impossible to know what it must feel like to send your child to school in the morning only to learn later that day that they are dead - your child's body torn apart by a murderer's bullets. It's all so fucking pointless. And so, I feel grief.

____________________

This morning they're reporting that the shooter was a trans person. Just like me, except not. In the same way that a Black person doesn't know every other Black person, or that not all gay people know one another, I don't know every other trans person. In fact I only know a few. But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. What I want to say is that us trans folks are a very diverse group. In fact, I would guess that we probably have a person among us who is either sociopathic or mentally ill enough to perpetrate a mass shooting at roughly at the same percentage level as any other group you wish to mention.

I only bring this up because I'm sure the shooter's identity as a trans person will only encourage those that already use our existence as an excuse to aim ignorant, hate-filled rhetoric our direction to do so at an increased volume. I wonder if these same people speak out against white men (as a population), with the same vehemence every time a mass shooter is identified thusly. Still, this time the shooter is a trans person, and as a person who also shares that designation, I do feel a small degree of guilt.

____________________

Now, about guns. About a month ago I saw a bumper sticker attempting to school me on the evils of gun control by claiming: "It's not about the guns - it's about the freedom." I say "attempting," because to me, that statement is a huge 'self-own,' on the part of all the NRA backed wackadoodles out there. How so, you might ask. I'll get there, but let me back up for a few minutes here.

I admit to being ambiguously attracted to first person shooter games. I say "ambiguously" because I feel like I shouldn't enjoy them, but I do. And in the movies, when Arnold Schwarzenegger arms himself with some ridiculously huge firearm, I'm totally on board with the ballistically charged ass-kicking he is about to deliver. But in real life, no, I don't like guns. I don't own one, and have no desire to change that. Because it's unrealistic to suggest a world where guns didn't exist, I won't go there, but I sure do want to live in a world that has a lot less guns in it. 

But what about the 2nd Amendment? Ahhh, there's the rub, isn't it? The right to own guns is right there in the U.S. Constitution. Except it's not in the constitution - it's one of the amendments. You know, the way we keep our Constitution a living, breathing document by allowing us to change (or 'amend'), the rules or laws by which we choose to be governed. A new amendment curtailing the ownership of guns could theoretically become the law of the land at some future date. I don't believe that will ever happen because guns have become so fetishized by our culture. (Don't believe me - pick up any magazine devoted to firearms and look at the pictures of the guns found therein - they can put the centerfold pictures in Playboy to shame.) That I believe the second amendment has been grossly abused and intentionally misunderstood by those championing 'gun rights,' is besides the point, though.

"It's not about the guns," the slogan went, "It's about the freedom." Except, and this is where the wackadoodles end up with egg all over themselves, the ownership of fire arms by private citizens is not an absolute right. None of our "rights" are absolute when you come down to it. Freedom of Speech? You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. A Free Press? There are slander and libel laws to ensure that we don't knowingly lie about one another. If the right to bear arms was absolute, I would be able to go down to the local Chevy dealer and buy a fully operational Abram's tank, and Wal-mart would have a 'flame-thrower' section.

The fact of the matter is that restrictions on fire arms already exist. Creating new restrictions and/or enforcing those already on the book doesn't eliminate the already NON-absolute right, whatever it might be, that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, they only change the parameters of legal gun ownership. 

So. You want a handgun at home to help you feel more secure, I'm fine with that. Have a couple. Your family loves to hunt? Don't invite me, but you do you. And once again, you probably need multiple guns depending on the season. Just be sure to keep them safely locked up at home. But if you believe that you have a 'right' to a semi-automatic something or other with bump stocks so you don't have to stop and reload, we have a problem. The only herd an AR-15 seems to cull is innocent people

So, until you're ready to walk into the living rooms of those three families that lost a child yesterday and explain to them why your 'freedom' is more important than the life of their child, it's time for you to shut the fuck up, and try to be a part of the solution instead of a heartless obstacle.