As per norm, the refreshed zeal for gun control misses the point that the gun is not the problem. Controlling a gun will not stop it from doing or not doing a specific action, namely firing at a human being andkilling it. See where I go with this? The person needs controlling, namely, the unable, unstable, irresponsible, unlawful person. Gun control will never apply to the law abiding, mentally stable person, so why bother with the time, effort and money taken to create new laws that fail? Why not enforce the laws already in existence? I ponder these topics as I watch all the Netflix episodes of the TV series Grey’s Anatomy. I previously commented on an episode in particular where a disgruntled widower shot a surgeon and many other doctors and hospital personnel. He grieved over the loss of his deceased wife. Interestingly, as I now watch all the episodes, replete with story line and character development, I see how this “bad guy” came into the picture and where he could have been intervened. In the show’s every other situation of distress, the hospital’s social services professionals came to the aid of the afflicted. In this case, where the man clearly came more and more unglued over the course of a handful of episodes regarding his sick and dying wife, no one addressed his mental state or called in social services. On the one hand, I say,” Of course not! Leaving him deranged allowed for the advancing levels of his use of deadly force.” No gory episodes if said “bad guy” got helped emotionally, psychologically, etc. I get this, it is TV, it is entertainment. BUT, on the other hand, this constitutes the very foundation from which society organizes acceptable behaviors and there you have it: the TV shows us it is ok to shoot people as a viable response to grieving. I think it a rotten shame for TV to showcase firearms use in this manner. I think it a rotten shame that TV misses the opportunity to develop and reveal all the ways a sick person could be dealt with, helped, intervened, monitored.
What do you think?