http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-senators-handling-her-gun-draws-fire-013945866.html

I really can't stand crap like this. What was she thinking? There are so many problems with her actions.

Also, who makes a gun without a safety switch? Seriously? Let's put it another way: What should we think is the intent of a gun with no safety switch, and what should we think of a gun purchaser who explicitly seeks out a gun with no safety switch? I'm not saying she is explicitly among the latter, but I'm saying that, at best, she made a poor purchase.

When sensational stupidity like this occurs, it's easy to take that circumstance as a referendum on the broader principle. It's easy, that is, to react by saying 'people shouldn't carry guns', and one can certainly find a lot of people to agree with on this point. But, the necessary question behind the question is: why should guns be or not be abolished? When we reach past the point of 'do or do-not', to the 'why do, or why do-not', we will find a multitude of reasonings. Appealing to the do-not, one might fear guns, another might desire universal pacifism, and another might desire a totalitarian central government. Likewise, in the 'do' camp, one might desire anarchy, another might desire to shoot his neighbor, and another might simply desire the ability to defend himself as he sees best. If we only address the question of 'do or do-not', we do not address the multitude of contradictory ideals that are advanced in each decision.

In other words, it's easy to lock arms to achieve an action. But, in order for that action to be meaningful, we must understand and agree why to take an action. The latter is always more difficult, because it requires people to think and communicate independent of their self-interests. That doesn't always come easy.