I currently have a driver's license from the District of Columbia. To obtain this, because I'm diabetic, I visited an eye doctor and my regular doctor. Both doctors signed a D.C. form saying that I was safe to drive and for how long (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years - I'm good for 5).
This safeguard keeps people without decent vision (poor control of diabetes can cause vision problems) and, I assume, sensation in all their limbs (poor control of diabetes can also cause nerve damage) from driving. After all, it's pretty scary for someone who can't see or feel their feet to operate even a Honda Civic.
As I was jumping through these hoops I was a little annoyed. It was an extra doctor visit, two extra co-pays, and my eyes were dilated, which totally cramped my bike ride to work. But I figured it was reasonable for me to do all that work. I considered how much damage a person could do if they drove with terrible vision changed by a week or so without insulin. Certainly, I decided, this was a limitation that made sense.
When I heard about Stephen Kazmierczak buying several guns quickly, after he reportedly stopped taking medication for anxiety, after ending a (possibly abusive) long-term relationship, and after spending time in a mental health institution (too long ago for it to show up on a background check) - I wonder.
Owning a gun is a right that can be limited. It's a right that should be limited, perhaps in the same way that driver's licenses are limited to people with diabetes. That's reasonable.
I don't know what else to say, and I think I'm trying to sound reasonable when I'm feeling emotional. I cannot imagine what this is like for NIU students, their families and the community of DeKalb.
"I have seen expressions of love and togetherness. We will get through this together."
- NIU President John G. Peters
1 comment:
You make a really great argument. I'm a big 2nd Amendment supporter, but I don't think reasonable regulation is a real infringement on our right to bear arms.
There's some danger in allowing the government to decide who can and cannot have a gun, but this guy clearly had no business owning a firearm, let alone be able to acquire one while in the state he was.
Post a Comment