In the wake of the most recent school shooting, the argument has been made that if we just armed everyone with a gun, preventive shootings would prevent mass shootings. If one guys shoots the crazy person who is about to shoot a bunch of other people, the pending tragedy would be averted and everyone lives a happy life.
Of course, this simply raises the question of how does one determine which crazy person to shoot to prevent the next gun-created massacre? We're not quite at the Minority Report point in society, so precognition is out. However, this argument assumes that non-crazy people are able to divine the insanity level of others and thus judge whether or not to kill someone based on... Magic, maybe?
As a country, we're becoming used to the idea of acting before evidence is proven out. We went to war in a country for over a decade and sacrificed many lives on a hunch that they might use weapons we considered off limits. We've accepted that all of our communications are probably being read and analyzed by our government, and we submit to embarrassing invasions of privacy just to travel to visit our families for the holidays.
Thought: if we as a country don't care about our myriad privacy rights or the rights of other countries to self-govern, why should our opinions be accepted concerning whether we're allowed to own a weapon of minor to moderate destruction?
One thing people tend to forget is that Freedom of Speech also means that individuals have the Freedom Not To Speak. Perhaps we should all exercise that freedom just a little more often.
We're hearing more and more stories about anti-gay weirdoes spouting off their beliefs in unnecessary or unusual places. Some of those people, like this guy, are being punished for their inopportune and unwelcome comments. And some of those people, like that same guy, are being propped up as martyrs in the fundamentalist Christian community.
The thing is that, while he does have a right to speak his mind, he doesn't have a right to do so without repercussion. We all have rights and privileges in this country, but those come with responsibilities as well. The responsibility to speak about appropriate topics in appropriate ways and in appropriate settings strongly correlates with the right to free speech.
For example, I am free to discuss topics like my bedroom activities with whomever is around me. But that may come at a cost. If I choose to speak of these things with friends at a bar, that cost will be laughs or friendly jibing, but if I choose to do so in front of my boss, that cost may be the loss of my job, or if I choose to do so on Facebook, that cost may be the "unfriending" of family and friends who are not keen on participating in such discussions.
You see, I am free to discuss my bedroom antics, but I am also subject to the cost of that freedom. Conversely, I am free to simply not speak of such things, thereby avoiding any cost, and I am free to selectively share, thereby incurring only the costs I am willing and able to pay.
Clearly, there are people who are unaware of the costs of their Freedoms. Perhaps if people continue to lose focus of the societal costs of their freedoms, we should enact the $1.05 policy advocated by Team America: World Police.
