Gun Control: A Rant

[Wirey]

I’d like to start this off by explaining that I am a gun owner, and I see no problem with gun ownership. In fact, I think that schools in rural areas should have Gun Safety as a part of Health Class (or whatever the Hell they’re calling it now). Unlike the vast bulk of people, my job used to involve shooting things (trapper and seal hunter, can I get a Death to Seals? Damn hippies), something that will continue to vanish because people don’t realize how hot women look wrapped in mink or fox. My first deer (whitetail, 10 point buck dressed at 190 and tasted great with mushrooms) is still one of those memories I can replay in my head like it happened yesterday, and that deer died around the same time as Anwar Sadat (I heard Sadat was mostly gristle though).

And I read Yank press and hear that any form of gun control is a liberal plot to steal guns from the innocent collectors and hunters. Sorry, but it’s not. Gun control is merely an attempt to limit personal access to firearms to something reasonable. I remember when Canada first came out with the Long Gun registry, (which we scrapped as too clunky) how many Americans claimed it was a matter of weeks before we all had our guns rounded up and got stuck in internment camps or something. Instead, nothing of the kind happened, and the law went away. Imagine that, our elected officials, Canadians just like us, weren’t out to enslave us. Good thing for them, too. I had my Wingmaster loaded so I could start knocking down F-18s and sinking destroyers as soon as they crossed the line.

Gun control is merely an attempt to keep guns to something reasonable. A semi-auto 30/06 with a five shot clip is one thing, a Ruger mini-14 with a thirty shot one is something else. The first one is for a moron who isn’t talented enough to make the first shot count (I prefer the pump .270 from Remington, because only need the second shot if the first one takes too long to do the job), the second is a modified combat weapon whose sole purpose is to kill other people. Period. Who goes hunting with a mini? Even an AR-15? If you need 20 or 30 shots to kill something, you’re better off giving the gun to a real hunter and staying the hell home. I can remember openly mocking a grown man who missed a deer with three shots when I was 15.

So, please, when you talk about gun control, don’t uses phrases like “The gub’ment jest wants to take ma guns away so they kin come fer ta git me” and expect to be taken seriously. The government, and most thinking people on earth, want to make it tougher for nut-jobs to shoot up a school. Not criminals, nuts. Smart criminals will always get whatever guns they want. But crazy people make a lot of mistakes under pressure, and if they have to try and find that illegal rifle they will screw up and get caught eventually. And maybe, just maybe, your life without a pretend machine gun will lead to someone’s kid getting out of the school alive because the shooter had to stop and reload every five rounds.

There, I’m all better now.

 

[ChristineES]

People make political arguments out of tragedies: The left is talking about gun control and the right is talking about God and schools. It is totally improper, and not fair to the victim. But... I think enough time has gone by now.

The fact is that people who should never have a gun will get one- sometimes by taking it from a family member, as in the case of the last tragedy or sometimes buying it illegally or stealing one- that is the problem and not the guns themselves. People need to have more sense- a parent who has a special needs child (or adult) should know better to leave guns around where their offspring can get them. People also need to lock up their fire arms. And there are certain weapons regular citizens don't have any need to own. And there is more that I don't have a desire to go through.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think the problem is a bit more complex than saying whether or not people should have guns or not. There's so many different factors that have to be considered, that the debate that's going on in political circles will get us nowhere.

 

[ChristineES]

Nothing is ever simple. We all wish for simpler solutions, but they never are.

 

[Lady B]

I agree Wirey. Gun control is not taking away men's rights to hunt or to defend himself, It is trying to make it harder for the criminal to go and purchase a gun or steal a gun from an absentminded owner and use it for evil purposes. I agree it should be hard to attain assault rifles, and training in safety and concealment should be given when licensing. I think the gun rights activists have taken things way to far in the media and are putting fear where none is needed. None is trying to unarm America and disperse our 2nd amendment rights here, but criminals are getting guns way to easily, and most times they are because law abiding gun owners do not lock them up and practice safety or that Gun shops don't follow proper methods when dispersing them. I know I feel a lot safer knowing crazy Pete can't just walk in a gun shop and say " hey sell me that there gun" Gun laws do protect us and regulations are not a bad thing. Will criminals still get Guns and use them for evil? yes, sure. But some proper regulations may impede one life lost and that life counts too.

 

[Lady B]

I was also thinking of ways to ensure bad guys can't use the good guys's weapons...what If we used all this technology man has and put some sort of fingerprint password on all guns. So they would only fire if in the right hands. Just a thought but why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Silly Canuckistanians....you forget the 2nd Amendment.
It is about bearing arms which can kill people.
Even if you doubt its usefulness, it is our law.
It's also about the tradition of being able to overthrow even our own gov if they get too full of themselves
So hunting is not a specifically protected right, but the ability to kill people is, albeit under rare & pressing circumstances.

Btw, I once had a Mini 14 with a bunch'o 30 round mags.
I also had a Springfield M1A Supermatch with a bunch'o 20 round mags & a gov't model sniper scope.
Both sold now cuz of money needs. The latter one I sold to a friend at the Post Office.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was also thinking of ways to ensure bad guys can't use the good guys's weapons...what If we used all this technology man has and put some sort of fingerprint password on all guns. So they would only fire if in the right hands. Just a thought but why not?

Reliability issues. I recently got a special permit for flying.
The feds had to fingerprint me, & they used their new state of the art electronic scanning system.
After innumerable tries & an hour or so, they finally got it to work. It was the size of a computer.
Scale that down to the size of a handgun grip, & I bet reliability would be even worse.
Put this system on a gun, & it would be no better than a cudgel for self defense.

I advocate more gun control too, but not this feckless Feinstein flavor of regulation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Almost every country had no gun control in the 1800's to 1900's
Since then many have brought in controls including the UK.
It was a gradual process with the laws getting stricter through time.
It can be done anywhere that there is the will to do it.
The USA seems more relaxed about a few mass killings, than it does about introducing gun laws.
It is their choice. Their civilisation.

 

[Wirey]

I was also thinking of ways to ensure bad guys can't use the good guys's weapons...what If we used all this technology man has and put some sort of fingerprint password on all guns. So they would only fire if in the right hands. Just a thought but why not?

When they steal my gun they'll bring a set of cable cutters and take my fingers, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

When they steal my gun they'll bring a set of cable cutters and take my fingers, too.

You could be a stand-in to play Chuck on Sons Of Anarchy.....

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I used to be a big supporter of stricter gun control laws, thinking that taking away gun rights outright was the solution. I no longer have that view, realizing that the situation is much more complicated than that. There's so much involved, that there's no easy solution, especially not as easy as the politicians make it out to be.

Being a Buddhist, I'd love for there to be no problems in this regard, and the answer being as simple as just taking away guns, and there being no more gun violence. However, reality speaks to something completely different. Buddhism is about ideals, and this is not an ideal world.

If you take away the right to own guns, murderers will still find a way to either get guns anyway, or to kill with something else. If you have relaxed laws, you have law-abiding citizens carrying guns, but it makes it that much more easy for murderers to get them as well.

So what's the answer? The answer isn't about gun control, it's about education. It's about morality. The main question one has to ask is: why do some people kill in the first place? Gun control laws are a band-aid to a much deeper problem. And until that deeper problem has an answer, no amount of gun control laws or lack thereof is going to answer the question in a satisfactory way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why is it that for a century and a half guns were never any kind of issue yet in one silly generation this becomes a prime target?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Why is it that for a century and a half guns were never any kind of issue yet in one silly generation this becomes a prime target?

I think the answer to this is just as complicated as the answer to the gun control debate. As the culture changes, it's values change. Guns weren't an issue 50 years ago, so gun control laws weren't a major concern. As the culture changed, as it's values changed, so did it's political and social concerns and issues.

 

[UTK007]

In the United States, most gun laws are made at the state level. Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook tragedy took place, has some of the most strict gun laws in the country. Assault weapons are already banned in Connecticut, yet those laws didn't prevent the tragedy from happening (of course an assault weapon wasn't even used at Sandy Hook). Making more laws will not in itself make people safer. This epidemic will have to be approached in a more holistic and systemic fashion if it is to make a difference.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

In the United States, most gun laws are made at the state level. Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook tragedy took place, has some of the most strict gun laws in the country. Assault weapons are already banned in Connecticut, yet those laws didn't prevent the tragedy from happening (of course an assault weapon wasn't even used at Sandy Hook). Making more laws will not in itself make people safer. This epidemic will have to be approached in a more holistic and systemic fashion if it is to make a difference.

And on the other side of the coin, having armed guards at schools isn't very helpful. Remember Columbine? They had two armed guards, who could do nothing to stop the tragedy. We absolutely have to get to the heart of the problem, which isn't gun control, but why people kill or want to kill in the first place. Everything else is just a band-aid and political positioning.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When they steal my gun they'll bring a set of cable cutters and take my fingers, too.

Actually, I could live with that.

 

[Wirey]

Actually, I could live with that.

Thanks. Love you too, pal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the United States, most gun laws are made at the state level. Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook tragedy took place, has some of the most strict gun laws in the country.

From the Washington Post:

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) preemptively fought back against that argument Sunday, saying gun-makers can get around half-measures and that federal action is needed.
“Connecticut has a pretty aggressive law — probably of the 50 states, I think we’re ranked fourth most aggressive in trying to limit access to these kinds of weapons,” Malloy said. “But what happens in the absence of a Brady bill, in the absence of federal legislation, people use descriptive terms to try to get around the limitations that are built into our statutes here in Connecticut, or might otherwise not happen if we had federal legislation on this issue.”

This epidemic will have to be approached in a more holistic and systemic fashion if it is to make a difference.

Holistic and systematic! It's sure hard to argue against such wisdom. But tell us: What part do you think gun control laws might have in this holistic ad systematic approach?

 

[Tarheeler]

...

So what's the answer? The answer isn't about gun control, it's about education. It's about morality. The main question one has to ask is: why do some people kill in the first place? Gun control laws are a band-aid to a much deeper problem. And until that deeper problem has an answer, no amount of gun control laws or lack thereof is going to answer the question in a satisfactory way.

I get what you're saying, but I think it's incorrect to say that it isn't about gun control.

While it might not be the total solution, it certainly does play a part. We still don't need to allow felons or the mentally unstable to have open access to firearms. We still need to be able to determine what, exactly, is in the spirit of the Constitution. We still to have controls in place that keep weapons out of the hands of unsupervised kids.

It's not a band-aid; it is part of a comprehensive solution.

And I agree that there is much more to the problem. Most people don't want to address the factors that encourage crime and violence: lack of education, low economic mobility, lack of welfare and mental health services, disintegrating social support structures. And the list goes on.