Just today, the most prestigious US military sniper, Chris Kyle, was killed. The cause? Not an illness, or a car accident. No. He was shot by an Iraq and Afghanistan military veteran at a shooting range.
I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.
The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.
What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment