How many dead college kids does it take before state governments are forced to act? Apparently that depends on the state.
The sensible folks of Minnesota are using the deaths of several college students to address the problem of binge drinking. Watering holes in college towns like Mankato offer unlimited cups of beer and mixed drinks for $5.00 from 9 PM to midnight. (No bar owner would be dumb enough to try this near a Jesuit school.) This clever sales ploy is having the exact effect you would expect.
In October, a 21-year old student died from alcohol poisoning. This brings to four students dead from drinking throughout the state. Minnesota is attempting to ban the practice of bottomless cups. Fond as I am of the occasional tipple, it is hard to argue with the state's concern. College students are particularly vulnerable (and particularly dopey). Any segment of the population willing to paint themselves in the school colors for a public appearance cannot be trusted to drink responsibly, especially when the hooch is free. From a practical standpoint, knowing "when to say when" might be "when" the money runs out.
Now slide your gaze 1,500 miles or so to the east, to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Public tragedy generates an entirely different response in the Old Dominion.
Consider the Commonwealth's reaction to the 32 brutal deaths at Virginia Tech last April. The legislature of Virginia immediately (well, seven months later) rushed into action and did ...nothing. The state imposed no additional restrictions on gun purchases. Background checks are still not required at gun shows or for private gun sales. Clearly the good old boys in Richmond consider the deaths in Blacksburg acceptable collateral damage.
Legislators from such enlightened corners of the state as Lynchburg and Roanoke argue that the gunman at Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho, bought his guns legally and passed a background check. Sadly, that's true. However, had his mental condition been known to the state, and had he been denied a gun at a liscensed shop, he would have still been free to buy his weapon of choice at any of hundreds of gun shows around Virginia.
Face it folks, we are never going to pry the guns from the warm, living hands of people in America who are determined to own them. We can however, try to make it a little tougher to buy a gun if you are a convicted wife-beater or if your mental elevator doesn't ascend all the way to the top.
Slippery slopes notwithstanding, why do responsible gun owners constantly defend the rights of the irresponsible? Thousands die each year from bullets fired either in anger or by accident. Why is it so strange for a resident of Missouri or Idaho to be a concerned citizen first and a gun owner second? These people are victims of their own lobby. They support an organization that is primarily responsible for protecting the rights of killers and crazies. How does that make sense?
If the Auto Club spent my dues campaigning to allow drunks and crazy people to keep buying cars and driving on my roads, I'd raise hell. Explain to me how the NRA is different?
In case there are any Virginia State Senators reading this, please note...guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
Crazy people with guns, and bulltes kill people.
People who can buy guns and bullets at the local expo center without ID or a background check, kill people.
I guess 32 dead wasn't enough of a body count to cause a response in Virginia. Clearly none of the legislators in Richmond had kids at VT that day.
No comments:
Post a Comment