Praeothmin wrote:And once again we see the Cowboy mentality is as healthy as ever in the good ol' US of A... :)
Con-sarnit boyyyy, I dun thought I told ye to keep yer mitts offa my propitty.
Praeothmin wrote:I've seen many discussions online about gun rights and ownership, and people even argued the fact that there were more assaults committed with hammers, knives and household items then guns, but these arguments always ignored one very important aspect:
I have the physical ability to run away from a maniac with a knife or a hammer, and if push comes to shove, I can actually block a knife or hammer attack, and can use normal objects like a stick, a rolled up magazine, anything, to defend myself against those weapons...
I suppose this just boils down to the fight or flight response. My question would be why not shoot back? Which is, of course, the conclusion many gun owners have drawn.
Praeothmin wrote:I spoke with many customers in the US over the years, and they aren't the backwards gun-toting retards the world likes to paint the US gun owners to be like...
In fact, most of them agreed assault rifles should be banned, as no one needs one and should own one...
But they aren't the ones who can influence the Government, alas...
Wait, you mean Canadians don't have just one road? I saw that on a South Park once. ;)
Depending on whom you ask, various poll numbers show levels of support for certain bans.
Now, having said that, and realizing that I may prejudice my case, I must say that "the will of the people" means jack shit to me in most cases. My primary concern is the Constitution and its defense, which has been served by the removal of this ban. The Supreme Court, in affirming the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right (like the rest of them) allowed for the continued regulation of firearms. The Court's opinion holds that the Second Amendment protects arms "in common use at the time," which certainly applies to so-called "assault weapons."
What "the will of the people" demands is a fickle, fleeting thing, easily influenced by fear or sensationalism, which is why we have a system of checks and balances on that will in the form of the Supreme Court. A panel of nine unelected "elitists," who serve for life or until they choose not to, who can overturn the laws of Congress supposedly passed in response to "the will of the people." The only recourse the people have in overruling the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Amendment which, while possible
de jure is
de facto impossible given the divisions within the country. Personally I'm quite happy SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says.
As I've had this argument about ten million times, I can go through most of the talking points.
1) This law is about protecting lives, and we have to stop this from ever happening again.
I don't believe that such massacres are merely "the cost of freedom," but if we are to attempt to prevent such disasters, where does the first line of defense fall? The left's answer is to forbid anyone from making the choice to buy certain firearms in the first place, a position I disagree with. Many on the left reacted with amazement at the suggestion that schools should have armed guards. Even if you could magically remove every privately owned firearm, as the Bath Massacre shows dedicated madmen will find ways to harm people. Such being the case, why wouldn't armed security at schools be a given? The Newtown shooting has caused a serious tidal wave within the architectural community on the subject of school design, with a particular focus on safety subcontractors and all the various means they have of controlling the environment. Even if it were possible to remove all private weapons, why wouldn't the left be in favor of armed security. That doesn't mean the school will become a gulag (the slippery slope fallacy) it merely means we accept the reality that regulations won't stop every massacre. And as for funding it, use the money from a tax on high-capacity magazines or assault rifle sales.
So, if the point is to save lives, we should address every conceivable means by which that might be accomplished WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that Constitutional liberties are protected.
I'm in favor of universal background checks, since I can sail through one with ease. In my own experience, it isn't hard to, you know, NOT be a criminal.
As far as registration and insurance go, I'm a little iffier. The left often tries to draw an analogy with between guns and cars. I'm suspicious of registration as a matter of principle, since it could be a prelude to confiscation. That, of course, is another instance of slippery slope in action, which I freely admit to. If we could ensure that confiscation would never result from a registration system, I be okay with it. We'd also have to ensure that some jackass newspaper doesn't try to make us unwelcome in our own communities, or broadcast to criminals where to get guns. As far as insurance, it would need to be carefully tailored to a real examination of the threats posed. Getting in a car accident can make your insurance premiums go up. Having a firearm stolen and used in a crime can already bring criminal charges down on you, so I'm not sure what insurance would achieve in that case. I'm suspicious of it because it would be easy for the left to use it in an attempt to make private firearms ownership prohibitively expensive. As long as saving lives is the real goal (with the funds given to some sort of charity for victims or research or something) then I'd be okay with it. But as long as anyone behind it harbored the intention, however secret, of attempting to damage our constitutionally protected liberties, I have problems.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Dianne Feinstein, 1995.
That is why I will never trust anything she says regarding guns. That is why I don't trust her "it's for the children" bullshit. I know what her real goal is, and anything with her name on it is anathema to me.
2) Guns are designed to kill.
Gun owners will typically point to the fact that motor vehicle fatalities account for more deaths than firearms (and the firearms figure typically includes suicides). The left's standard response is the above statement. Cars aren't designed to kill. Guns are. To which I say "so what?" It's irrelevant to the previous point of saving lives. If you're concerned about saving lives in general, why aren't there are as many if not more new restrictions being proposed on cars? "Guns are designed to kill" is irrelevant to the point that, irrespective of design, cars kill more people.
This isn't a problem for those whose point is to reduce GUN violence specifically, but there's a larger issue here. The mistake many make is the tacit equation of "kill" with "murder." Yes, guns kill. That's their primary purpose, be it deer or rodents or people. But a particular brand of pacifism seems to want to equate kill with murder, which is simply fallacious. I can kill someone without murdering them, which I why I have guns. Lawful self-defense is part of the reason civilians can own guns. Some people don't want to own guns. They don't trust them or don't trust themselves with them, and that's fine by me. But I do, and will continue to do so.
One last point on this is the existence of many "duty to retreat" laws. This is merely a function of where I happen to fall which, frankly, I no longer have any idea of when it comes to classical left-right spectra. But I'm not going to try to "talk down" an intruder, nor will I retreat and allow him unimpeded access to my stuff. Yes, my property matters more to me than his life. If you want to call me a monster for that, go right ahead.
3) Assault weapons are designed for military use. No civilian needs them.
I'm always wary of government telling me what I need. I'm not against it universally. I would consider the merits after a thorough examination of the issues, but I don't believe most gun control advocates have done that, which I can readily support by simply reading some of their material and proposals. I demand, as I would hope any intelligent citizen would, that those who seek to legislate have a thorough knowledge of what they're trying to legislate on. Which brings me to the main point. "Assault weapon" is a nebulous definition. Why do certain features on a weapon, which make it no more or less effective, somehow make it more dangerous? And why the focus on so-called military features?
I would like people to explain why a muzzle brake, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, picatinny rail, forward grip or any other feature make the weapon any more dangerous? People like Dianne Feinstien, who from pictures is seen to practice poor, which is to say no trigger discipline, or Caroline McCarthy, who couldn't tell an interviewer what a barrel shroud was despite wanting them banned. This is why I can't condone these bans. It isn't just that I view it as a civil liberties issue instead of the public health view the liberals espouse. It's that the left seems entirely unwilling to educate itself about what it hopes to ban. As far as they're concerned, they're doing The Right Thing, facts and definitions be damned. And it is that refusal that keeps me from having any real agreement with them. Feinstein admitted she views us as "the enemy." Thanks, bitch. I feel real inclined to entertain any viewpoint you have now. And these are the same people who would preach about the need for "solidarity" or ask why we can't "compromise." There's compromise, and there's capitulation. It's the latter Feinstein wants from us.
Lastly, as I've had this discussion with my FBI agent brother in law, but there seems to be a certain group that views gun ownership in general, and assault weapons ownership in particular, as something of a pathology. It's as if being military style provokes some sort of Rambo Syndrome in people. "I have a scary black rifle, look how badass I am." I'm not sure what to think of that. I've never felt the desire to kill people when holding any weapon. I do want to get my hands on an original Russian Dragunov SVD some day, but that's because I love the design, not because I'll feel "cool" holding it. I sold off my Desert Eagle because it's basically a money sink. I admired the engineering, even if it was in service of something totally impractical.
4) It worked in Europe.
Where exactly? We've been over Switzerland already. And we've been over the UK, which has a high violent crime rate despite its draconian weapons laws, many of which serve to punish otherwise law abiding citizens. Given that the left cannot claim that gun control reduces gun violence universally, what is the recourse? Enact it and hope for the best result? Or should we conduct further study. Why is Switzerland the way it is? Why is the UK the way it is? What's going on there socially? Economically? Culturally? And what part of that might be applicable here? I don't know. This is one place I disagree with the NRA. We should be allowed to study the firearms issue in more detail. It might give us a way to better protect law abiding citizens and capture or deter criminals. No one ever suffered from a surfeit of information as far as I'm concerned, so study away.
5) No one needs magazines with 100 rounds.
That's probably true. People will still want them, and I'm okay with wanting them as long as they pay for them. I'd be okay with a tax on high-capacity magazines as long as it wasn't, as stated before, intended to make them unaffordable. Hell, I believe in taxing single people who own SUVs. There's no real need to own such a vehicle without 3 kids to cart around in it. Bloomberg's pitiful soda ban should be turned into some sort of tax. Don't want to pay it? Exercise some goddamn calorie control. But you want it, and its fine to want things. All I would ask is that you recognize the societal effects those things can have. If that's ALL I think a gun-control type is asking of me, I'll entertain their suggestions. But I don't want to outright ban people from purchasing things. Last time I was at a gun show, the factory 30-round mags for my Beretta 92 were going for $90 dollars. Pretty outrageous for a magazine, but I'd pony up if I really wanted one. I bought some cheapos instead. The factory 15 ones are probably all I'll ever really need, and I have plenty of those.
6) Don't you care about kids? You'd understand if you had children.
I don't have children, and I'm always suspicious of people who claim to be doing it "for the children." To me its the clarion call of a position that's probably draconian and couldn't be otherwise supported without the oldest and simplest emotional appeal. I'm willing to endure laws which will have a definite impact on the safety of children, but again I fail to see how an assault weapons ban would accomplish that. And as for "understanding" a great many parents are gun owners themselves, including my father when he raised me. They own them to protect their children, so I fail to see what "understanding" would alter my viewpoint. Hell, if I had children I might buy more guns.
I'm not averse to regulation. But I fail to see how Feinstein et alia, for whom the issue is so fraught with emotion and devoid of substantial study, can claim their darling legislation is "sensible," even if the reason there's no substantial study is the NRA's fault. Beat them at that first. Then, once you have the evidence you need, you can show me how what I own should be further regulated.
So, in summation:
Universal Background Checks? Yes, absolutely. Every point of sale excepting transfers within a household. Automatic sharing of pertinent information across all state lines. Complete records available. Upon any adult seeking to purchase a weapon for the first time, unseal any juvenile records for potential dangers.
Registration? Possibly yes, provided careful protections for gun owners. No provisions for confiscation EVER. No police doing what was done in New Orleans after Katrina EVER.
Insurance? Maybe. Again, careful protections for lawful gun owners. Premium bumps for accidental discharge? Hell yes. Proper clearing is not difficult, and if done often enough becomes second nature. Premium bump for stolen weapon? Absolutely. Securing is not difficult. I'd be in favor of that in place of criminal negligence charges, since the money could be used for some constructive purpose.
Allowing greater study? Knock yourselves out. The NRA should get the hell out of the way there.
Ban military style features? No.
Ban high capacity magazines? No.
Regulate high capacity magazines, possibly imposing a waiting period or tax of some sort? Depends. If it's not exorbitant I'd be okay with it.
Armed security for schools? I can't believe anyone could be against this, even if we could magically teleport every weapon into space. It's just common sense. It should be no different than having crossing guards (who protect kids from the deadly cars which kill more people than guns, after all.) Hell, they'd be better than crossing guards. A guard can't stop a lunatic in a speeding car (I'm talking physics here. He literally can't stop the car with his body. He'll be tossed aside like a ragdoll). An armed guard can, on the other hand, shoot and kill an armed intruder. Of course, the left will raise issues like proper target identification and shooting something other than the target. This is why we have training, and why there are specialized cartridges designed to stay in just one person.
Biometric trigger locks? Can't come fast enough. I'll shell out some tax money to pay for those. I want a Lawgiver 2 that will only fire for me. I can't see how gun-rights advocates could be against that, as long as it wasn't used in an attempt to make firearms prohibitively expensive.
Expanded mental health research? Go for it. Expand counselors at schools. Find as many of these people as you can before they go off.
I'm not sure how much, if any, of the above would actually be useful in stopping gun violence. Neither is anyone else. The following is not directed at any specific person, but is stated in general. Don't suggest that I'm "okay with dead kids" because I don't want a piece of legislation that will probably do fuck all to save kids. And don't ask me "how many more bodies will it take," since it's already established that the only real concern of many gun-control advocates who vomit up this shopworn cliche are children who die from guns
specifically. I don't see you burning a candle for all the poor kids dying of AIDS in Africa, so don't try to set yourself up as morally superior to me.
Just my thoughts.