Yeah, basically - he's saying we should "melt the guns" as the solution.
I find this is a rare instance where I don't truly agree with Andy's stance/viewpoint.
In my opinion, only approaching this situation from the opposite side of the equation first (which admittedly, is a lot more idealistic) could solve this issue. Guns (like all weapons of course) were designed in the first place because of man's desires to enact violence upon each other or other animals (for various reasons). That is the fundamental problem, so melting guns/weapons would be a short-term fix at best.
This song also raises the debate (which ties in with my previous point) of the issue of media influence being the reason behind 'youths' committing particular violent crimes i.e. shootings; or whether it just acts as the scapegoat for such moral dilemmas.
As hinted in my previous argument, I lean more towards the latter, but I think Andy is suggesting he believes in the former having a huge DECIDING influence.
As far as I see it - if someone is suggestible to such anti-social (forget whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' for the moment) acts in the first place, no amount of advoidance of their situation to influence, suggestibility or stimuli that will trigger such thoughts within themselves at one certain time or another will ever truly resolve the situation as a whole.
Yeah, basically - he's saying we should "melt the guns" as the solution. I find this is a rare instance where I don't truly agree with Andy's stance/viewpoint. In my opinion, only approaching this situation from the opposite side of the equation first (which admittedly, is a lot more idealistic) could solve this issue. Guns (like all weapons of course) were designed in the first place because of man's desires to enact violence upon each other or other animals (for various reasons). That is the fundamental problem, so melting guns/weapons would be a short-term fix at best.
This song also raises the debate (which ties in with my previous point) of the issue of media influence being the reason behind 'youths' committing particular violent crimes i.e. shootings; or whether it just acts as the scapegoat for such moral dilemmas. As hinted in my previous argument, I lean more towards the latter, but I think Andy is suggesting he believes in the former having a huge DECIDING influence. As far as I see it - if someone is suggestible to such anti-social (forget whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' for the moment) acts in the first place, no amount of advoidance of their situation to influence, suggestibility or stimuli that will trigger such thoughts within themselves at one certain time or another will ever truly resolve the situation as a whole.
Heh heh - anyway, that's my 2 cents. ;)