The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 14 of 17
With all due respect... gun advocates would do well to stop using such poor analogies - it doesn't help your cause. When we send troops into battle, to breakdown doors and kill insurgents, we don't arm them with chain saws or track balls. We give them full auto, highly lethal guns commonly referred to "assault weapons." Acknowledging the primary design directive of a gun is to kill, and not pound in a nail or turn a screw shows that you are willing to have a fair and honest discussion on the subject.
I agree that the Assault Weapons Ban is a patch, even a cludge, it's more "feel good" than real, and it doesn't serve either side. It comes up after every high profile violent gun crime. Public outcry followed by Congress using the spotlight for some PR.
I think the smartest thing for gun advocates would be to do some "Akido Politicking." Be the ones leading the way by being the biggest advocates of gun registration, screening and mandatory training. It would be a great way to show everyone how much you respect the weapons you own in the context of public service, instead of just the context of your guns and your desires as an individual.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Facts and figures mean crap unless the numbers are closer tou your home."
Why ?
If I were running a news show, aside from crimes where police need potential eyewitnesses or need to warn a community about a problem, ALL I would report on crime are statistics.
As for crime statistics, of all crimes, murder numbers are considered the most reliable.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you look at most responsible gun owners (you even see the opinion here) they have no problem with the mandatory background check every person purchasing a firearm must go through. Many already do advocate safety training for people whether they handle a firearm or not.
But it gets a little difficult when others say training equals more efficient killing. Safety training equals safer handling, nothing more. Just like the drivers test it outlines what to do and what not to do.
And the primary funtion of a gun is to fire a projectile.
Is the primary function of a hammer to crush plate armor of medevil knights?
So yeah, I think gun advocates already are the biggest supporters of the things you mention. Municipalities in many areas already require registering of firearms, background checks are enforced and waiting perods are still in effect all over the US, and mandatory training already is a defining factor for many clubs and organizations.
But then again that is the details from my culture within this city, county, and state. I wish more places could be more open to such things. It works well here but why is it harder for other places?
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
"But it gets a little difficult when others say training equals more efficient killing. Safety training equals safer handling, nothing more."
Nobody made that point. The word 'safety' was not in the original post. It's called a strawman argument, when you argue against a weak argument that no on has made (in order to 'win').
In addition, you skipped past the argument already made that most guns deaths are NOT accidents. Safety training might help alleviate accidental guns deaths, but won't put a dent in homicides, which are the issue.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Try not to get to wrapped up in those figures. Even the page you linked from Wiki stated that the numbers can't accurately be correlated due to the different types of reporting and laws. Manslaughter cases are sometimes thrown into those figures and domestic homocide figures are sometimes left out since the fall under different laws and penalties.
Media, again, really? Because we should believe all we see on TV. I was talking about you and the people in your immediate vicinity. What is your connection the the people in your neighborhood? Town? County?
So let us know how many drive by shootings and home invasions there have been in your neighborhood. What is the murder rate in your county? How about the recitivism rate of violent offenders and the correlation between them and drug crimes? Were you directly effected? These are the things that should matter more than what is on the news or what is reported for the nation. How can you consider those numbers to be numbers for your immediate vicinity unless you live in Cabrini Green, Watts, or Compton?
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
Hey now, I added "safety training" to add strength to you original argument. I like the fact you pointed out the lack of correlation between saftey and intent. People on both sides seems to have a problem making lines between the two.
And trust me, there is no win in this situation. When people die there is no true victory, just a false sense of security until the next fight comes along.
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
I know and respect people on both sides of this.
I think the public face of the gun side is pretty bad. The NRA just seems combative and only interested in appealing to their own members, "they can have my gun when they peel it from my cold dead hands." That's seriously pretty infantile - and certainly not in league with the intelligence of the advocates or gun enthusiasts I know (or posting here).
Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
And the primary funtion of a gun is to fire a projectile.
... that kills it's target.
Talk to a gun designer - I'm sure amongst all of the tech details the biggest design element will be the consideration of stopping power, whether that is for an elk or a human. I'm ok with that - that's why I'd buy a gun.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But you gotta admit to giggling at the hammer thing.
Okay, guns kill, but not all are intended to.
And I always hated Chuck doing that and his Pinnoccioing his way through the NRA thing. Check out their page. Recently they have been a bit more combative but I was suprized to see them bumping up safety and awareness on their agenda.
Target guns put holes in paper. That is their function. That is what they are built for. Once they lose their accuracy they often end up on the scrap heap without ever doing anything but punching paper. Their bullets are even designed for accuracy, not terminal ballistics.
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
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
With all due respect... gun advocates would do well to stop using such poor analogies - it doesn't help your cause. When we send troops into battle, to breakdown doors and kill insurgents, we don't arm them with chain saws or track balls. We give them full auto, highly lethal guns commonly referred to "assault weapons." Acknowledging the primary design directive of a gun is to kill, and not pound in a nail or turn a screw shows that you are willing to have a fair and honest discussion on the subject.
I agree that the Assault Weapons Ban is a patch, even a cludge, it's more "feel good" than real, and it doesn't serve either side. It comes up after every high profile violent gun crime. Public outcry followed by Congress using the spotlight for some PR.
I think the smartest thing for gun advocates would be to do some "Akido Politicking." Be the ones leading the way by being the biggest advocates of gun registration, screening and mandatory training. It would be a great way to show everyone how much you respect the weapons you own in the context of public service, instead of just the context of your guns and your desires as an individual.
Except...why should I register my gun when the gangbanger down the street doesnt? Why should I settle for a revolver when the stick-up men can use an AK? Why should I make myself publicly known to the government as owning a weapon, when none of the political/sports/movie figures do?
I dont respect the weapon. Its a tool. Its a means to an end. Perhaps the last means in an end.
However, I do agree they can take my gun ONLY from my cold dead hands.
And guess what?
It'll be empty.
I will use every last bullet to prevent folks from making me helpless against either my government or the random scum walking the street.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If guns were somethng that people used everyday as necessary tools, it would make sense that they develop a keen appreciation for them. But, with few exceptions (law enforcement, military) they're not. What I read is people see them as symbols of independence, self-reliance, and even self-importance. It's a reworking of a frontier myth (which never existed in the form people assume it did) into some kind of personal mantra."
Hello,
I assume you extend that to the golfer's favorite golf club, the archer's favorite bow, and the fencer's favorite sword. Since they don't use these things as necessary tools, their affinity for these items is symptomatic of a psychological condition?
You know... This all reminds me of Chivalry.
Originally, you see, there were just men with swords who butchered people rather indiscriminately. They fought wars, sure, but during peacetime these folks were generally just murderous scum with armor and swords who killed lesser men without compulsion. They fought duels to the death almost on a whim, depleting the ranks of good soldiers who might be needed during the next war. It was something of a mess.
Chivalry, and Codes of Honor in general, are invented pieces of fluffy myth. Idealized visions of warrior culture, they were created to inspire these brutes to a better standard of behavior. Courtesy, Hospitality, Protection, blah blah blah. Knights of the Round Table, Shining Armor, Paladins, all that crap. It's just a myth. But for those that take it to heart, the myth becomes real. The noble knight in shining armor can exist, Rue, if the man in the armor chooses to be noble in thought and deed.
It's not the people who develop an affinity for their guns that you need to worry about. It's not the people who yearn for that nonexistant frontier mythos. It isn't the people who save up money to get that special firearm, and then oil it carefully and look forward to the day when they can take it out to the range. It's certainly not anyone who has a sense of independence and self-reliance. You are directing your concern entirely at the wrong group, because these are not the folks who perform drive-by shootings. These aren't the folks who murder someone in the street and throw their 'gat' in the bay. You've somehow lumped the baby in with the bathwater on this issue.
And if you ever wondered, there is indeed a modern 'Code of Chivalry' for the upstanding gun owner. An ideal to which they aspire. You've probably heard it before, in another context. Rest assured, though, gun afficionados have, by and large, adopted these simple words and taken them to heart. I first read these words in a gun magazine as a child.
"Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there."
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME