Saturday, February 18, 2017

Gun Control

I've never paid any attention to firearms or legislation regarding firearms, mainly because I don't like guns and I can't spare any attention for such subjects. I have way too much to get wound up about already. I went to the pharmacy the other day though to pick up my most-recently-tweaked prescriptions for zoloft and this new one for anxiety which I don't think I like called buspiron or something. It's had me nauseous and paralyzed all week, which is why it's taken me so long to write again. The pharmacy is right next door to this Red Cross blood donation center so I had to walk by it on my way. In the window they had this sign which read "No guns allowed on premises." It wasn't official or anything, just typed up on a piece of paper and taped in the window. It struck me as really funny and really strange for some reason.

For one thing, I wondered who typed up the sign? Was it some Red Cross worker who had just had it with gun-carrying blood donors? Was it a volunteer who had seen one too many episodes of Dexter and grew fearful that someone would come hold her at gunpoint and demand blood? Was it someone who, like me, doesn't like guns, and, unlike me, refuses to accept them as a kind of compromise for living in this state? I can't imagine guns being a problem big enough to move someone to type up and hang such a sign at a blood donation facility.

Then, I suppose one might consider that the sign is meant to protect us, the general public, from getting blown away while giving blood. Of course, the Red Cross would want to protect their blood donors, but as a member of the general public and a potential blood donor, of all the places to get shot, I couldn't help but feel that a blood bank would seem more appropriate, even MOST appropriate. Aside from being shot in an actual hospital, a place like a blood donation facility with standards of sterilization, medical equipment, and a staff with at least a minimal amount of training, would be my choice of crime scene if someone were to shoot me.

I sat there and thought about this while I waited on my prescriptions, half chuckling, half thinking about writing about it if something more exciting didn't come along this week and kind of stared up at the ceiling. In the pharmacy, in all pharmacies anymore, there were cameras everywhere. I counted three just pointed at the cash register. Do they think a person robbing a pharmacy is really doing it for the cash? Are people even robbing pharmacies anymore? Aren't all the narcotics locked up and dispensed by machine? And if there is a Drugstore Cowboy out there among us, wouldn't he be carrying a gun? Why didn't the pharmacy have a "no gun" policy? I would think that, of the two, the pharmacy would be much more high-risk than the Red Cross, when it comes to gun violence.

When I got back in the car with Justin, I pointed out the sign. He does pay attention to anything gun-related, and keeps up with the politics. He said that it's actually illegal for them to post a sign banning guns from the premises. Everyone down here has guns, and carries them. To carry a hand gun, the law is that you must have a permit and have it concealed. A person who has their concealed hand gun permit wouldn't let their gun be seen, even while giving blood, rendering the sign even more problematic to me. Who was the sign meant to protect, indeed FROM whom was it meant to protect? Am I to believe that there are people illegally wielding firearms who also donate blood regularly enough to justify such a sign?

I've been laughing and thinking about that sign since Monday. I just can't think of a reason why someone, let alone enough people to require a sign, would want to carry a gun into a Red Cross facility. If you want to donate blood in this town, though, you best leave your guns at home, or be prepared to debate the legality of the sign in the window.

1 comment:

  1. Good points. I often find signs that leave me thinking..."What idiot did this or that to lead them to see purpose in posting a sign."