The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 12 of 17
Quote:
Okay, for the SLOW: I AM NOT ADVOCATING AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!
Capiche?
Is that clear?
I would not be upset by one, either. But am not advocating one, or trying to justify it. I do have a problem with some gun owners, and their mentality (and reading skills, apparently), but that isn't the same thing. Please, please try to actually read what I wrote, and not just assume you know my position.
I think we're somewhat more clear on your position, but it's taken a bit to get there. I don't for a moment assume I know your position; that's why I asked so many questions early on, so I can try to get a handle on where you're coming from, to build a basis for a real conversation about it, instead of just hashing back and forth over the old "guns are evil"/"guns are great" debate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.
I'm a victim of this association myself.
It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.
Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.
And this bugs me quite a bit - the whole "the way they're portrayed means it's okay to think that way about guns and people who like them."
Tell ya what: try applying that logic to black people, and see where that gets you. Sure, they're portrayed a certain way in the media, so does that make it okay to be bigoted against them?
Just curious. It's interesting to watch people who supposedly have no prejudices actually reveal what theirs are. And we ALL have prejudices of some sort or another. I guess for some, it's just prejudice against gun owners that's okay and acceptable...
Mike
I'm sorry, are you attacking me for my post? I can't tell whether you are or not, but if you are, I'll be annoyed because I not only stated a prejudice I have but also that I recognize it and actively try to work around it. Can't ask for more than that, so direct your anger at someone else, thank you very much.
As for the racism comparison, most people operating under prejudices do not feel that they are. It's actually not that easy to recognize, because ultimately, many of our assumptions about the world come from very limited media-sources. Unless you examine something further, many of your impressionms will stay rudimentary and perhaps prejudiced.
So no one says it's "okay" to pre prejudiced because of media portrayal. It is simply the fact that many people are.
Agent: In no way was I attacking you for your post; I was merely attempting to use it as an illustration for comparing viewpoints on different issues.
If it seemed like a personal attack, I'm deeply sorry. It was certainly not intended as such.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less."
A tool used to shoot and only to shoot. The BEST you can hope for from a gun is that it doesn't kill innocent people. Though, come to think of it, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I don't see people being executed by firing squad. So, theoretically, everyone who dies of a gunshsot is innocent. And by your own admission, 'arms' are mentioned in the constitution, and cars aren't. That makes YOUR analogy even less meaningful. So, please don't compare guns to cars, or tobacco, or alcohol.
There are implict limits on the 'right to bear arms' which no one has addressed as far as I can see.
Babies and nukes ? Anyone care to comment ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Rue: You're right in that a gun is to shoot and only to shoot, although I know several people who collect guns and put a high priority on "New in box, never fired" weapons, which they acquire and then don't shoot. To those people, these are merely investments, financial instruments that have a history of appreciating in value.
I disagree that the BEST I can hope for is to not shoot an innocent person. The BEST I can personally hope for is to be able to improve my target-shooting skills and further hone them. In over forty years of shooting, I've never shot anyone, innocent or otherwise, either accidentally or on purpose.
And another BEST I can hope for is to be able to put fresh meat on my family's table if there comes a time when I can no longer afford to buy it.
Guns are for shooting, but that doesn't mean they have to be for murder and mayhem.
And I'd say that any "implicit" limitations on the right to bear arms also apply to any of the other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.
As for babies and nukes, I'd say that comes down to common-sense limitations. But I could be wrong - we already put nukes in the hands of a moron (Bush), so anything's possible...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Rue, I will confess where I diverge from most of my 'gun-nut' bretheren.
In a world where there is agreement that lawful citizens should be allowed to keep and carry armaments, I'd be happy to oblige certain 'common sense' legal requirements.
I'd be happy to be required to take a government sponsored training and certification course in gun handling and safety. I think it'd be a good idea to make such courses available as an elective in High School, with night/weekend classes available to adults of the community.
I'd be happy to have my identity checked at the time of purchase of a firearm, to be sure I haven't been legally deemed insane or a felon whose rights haven't been restored.
I'd be happy to have age requirements for different types of firearms, such that children under the age of 16 could only use rimfire weapons under the supervision of an adult, once the safety and handling certificates are earned.
I think these steps are good common-sense measures to make sure that the owners and users of firearms are competent and responsible.
However...
I acknowledge that I am in a world where there is no agreement that lawful citizens should be allowed to keep and carry armaments. In the world I live in, common-sense gun control measures are stepping stones to disarmament. In the world I live in, gun-control advocates have explicitly stated that their goal with each measure of law is to inch closer to their ideal of complete gun banishment.
In my world, the desire to disarm me makes it difficult for me to embrace gun-control, because I've already been told in no uncertain terms that each foot in the door is a step towards robbing me of my rights.
If the gun control advocates were prepared to acknowledge my rights to own and carry, I'd be prepared to go a long way in setting up reasonable training requirements and limitations.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
I don't disagree with any particular point, sir.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AnthonyT
I think there should be explicit common-sense restrictions - considering there are implicit ones.
I'd go even further - I think military service should be mandatory, and after basic training where everyone is taught about guns - how to use them safely, how to clean them, how to store them - you may choose to serve your country either in community service (three-year tour) or in military operations (one year tour). That would eliminate what I think of as a dangerous bifurcation of populace - those who are interested in guns (for whatever reason) and those who aren't and are at a relative disadvantage.
What I don't understand is WHY the US has such a high gun death rate. What is it in our collective relationship with guns that makes us so much more likely to kill and maim with them than any other developed country on the face of the earth ?
Any thoughts ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
I'm not opposed to mandatory military service. If terrorism really is the threat that we're told it is, then compulsory military service and training would be the BEST way to fight it. Who invades a country where they KNOW with 100% certainty that every citizen is armed and trained how to fight? And what government would choose tyranny if such a population existed?
As for the WHY of the U.S. gun death rate, I have no answers. It ain't me, though - as I've said, I've never shot anyone. Well, at least not with anything more powerful than a BB gun. ;)
Maybe a part of it comes from people NOT being properly trained in firearms use and safety. Perhaps if more of us actually were trained, less of us would be killed.
'Course, I could say the same thing of cars... ;) Most fatal accidents are hardly unavoidable, if people would just pay attention. I guess asking people to be aware is just asking too much. And it never gets much traction when you try to point out to people that the most dangerous thing they're likely to do today is drive to work, and that it literally is a matter of life and death that they treat it as such.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to try to put this in some perspective and relate it to ANOTHER touchy subject, I'll interject this. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to ram guns down anyone's throat, my views are my own, and for the time being the government and the Constitution say they are valid ones, and completely legal...
Anyhoo, I'm a male on the back side of 40; I have no children, nor am I likely to ever have any. There's not much chance of an unwanted pregnancy in my future, or in the futures of any of my extended family (I have a 26-year-old niece who is pregnant, by choice and fully planned and hoped for). Why should I support a woman's right to choose? Like Storymark with assault weapons, I don't have a dog in this fight, so what's it to me if abortion is outlawed? And isn't the only point of abortion to remove the fetus, thereby killing it?
I bring it up only to try to get people thinking about things from OTHER viewpoints, to take them out of their comfort zones, to try to show that I will support your position, but I ask that you support mine, even though you may not gain anything by doing so.
By the way, I am fully in support of a woman's right to choose. What I'd like to know is, why should I be if it doesn't impact me in the slightest in any personal way?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like that view point. The shadow of taking life is oft a hard discussion especially for reasonably intelligent human beings. (I tell everyone to stop calling me smart because I know better) It is just too big of an issue for most people to handle all at once. If discussion of reasons for gun control were made more open and honest I think there might be more of a posative response to descision making. I watched a video montage of why guns should be outlawed on YouTube a few minutes ago. I did feel a little bad because they threw in incidents, dates, and names of people inolved. What really threw me off was the incidents from inner cities and the Red Lake shootings a few years ago.
I attended and evaluated a course for Victims Advocates at the Fon du Loc tribal collage near Duluth a short while afterward. After meeting a few of the responders I felt genuine and heartfelt remorse for all the families involved.
What bothered me is the person making the video could hardly be bothered to mix in much color during the video. I saw mostly the flushed and fearful faces of white teenage girls. There was not a single image of the Red Lake people who endured their ordeal. There were very few blacks represented in the video which doesn't make sense since Washington feels fit to point the finger at poor low income inner city youth and their "gun violence".
Not to push any buttons, but is that our primary concern? White America's false sense of security? I'm not trying to make a racial issue out of this, but that video just set me off a little.
You Tube video Should Guns Be Illegal?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Somehow, I don't think training is the answer to US gun deaths. Maybe to accidental shootings, but not to drive-bys, armed robberies, armed car-jackings, and the like. These people intend to shoot other people, even if they're not terribly particular about who. And judging by the gun-murder rate, I'd say they know well-enough how to do what they want to do and more training would just make them better at it.
Something is off-kilter with the US. Why are we so homicidal ?
Oh, yeah - just to address the point about 'the best one can hope for ...' Yes, a lot of dead paper targets and beer cans is a good outcome, as is dead game (which you later eat). Though plinking on living things which some people do for sport and call it hunting - not so much.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Somehow, I don't think training is the answer to US gun deaths. Maybe to accidental shootings, but not to drive-bys, armed robberies, armed car-jackings, and the like. These people intend to shoot other people, even if they're not terribly particular about who. And judging by the gun-murder rate, I'd say they know well-enough how to do what they want to do and more training would just make them better at it.
Something is off-kilter with the US. Why are we so homicidal ?
Oh, yeah - just to address the point about 'the best one can hope for ...' Yes, a lot of dead paper targets and beer cans is a good outcome, as is dead game (which you later eat). Though plinking on living things which some people do for sport and call it hunting - not so much.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
See, Rue? We really can be one big happy when we talk things out! We're coming at this issue from widely disparate viewpoints, but we're chipping away at it and finding some middle ground.
Training will help with some people; others it will merely make better killers. I think the question has less to do with guns and more to do with what makes us such a murderous society in the first place. If people are going to continue to do drive-by shootings, though, I'd really prefer them to get at least ONE guy in the gang who can read the damned house numbers, so they'll quit shooting the wrong damn people in the wrong damn houses!
As for hunting, I currently don't. I do like that I have the right to, should I so desire, though. Killing animals for fun and calling it sport is NOT something I'd ever want to be a part of. I *like* guns, but I love and value living things. I could conceivably kill for self-defense or for food, but not for fun. Maybe that's why I've never killed anyone...
You want to strengthen the existing laws to firm up background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of those who absolutely shouldn't have them? You'll get no argument here. I'd like to free up some of the other weapons to folks who have demonstrated that they are no threat with such weapons at their disposal.
But at some point, I think we really need to get back to your question of why we're such a murderous bunch as a nation. Find the answer (or answers) to that question, and you'd go far to finding the solution(s).
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I liked plinking when I did it. I liked archery when I did it. I still like tossing paper into wastepaper baskets. I'm just not about to get all righteous about doing any one of those.
And I don't see where an assault weapons ban (for the sake of argument, let's pretend it'll be a real ban on the right things instead of a stupid ban on the wrong things) is a slam-dunk DOA idea.
Especially given our current murderous culture.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME