The Big Gun Control Rant

Remove all ads!

This is a false analogy, though an understandable one and one I've seen before. My father owns a number of guns and enjoys shooting them at the range, yet he has the utmost respect for them and does not 'play' with them. Likewise, I have a number of swords which I enjoy swinging around, but I also treat them with the utmost respect and do not consider them toys.

While the reasoning is believable, the evidence does not bear it out. In places where guns are suddenly (or gradually) banned, knife crimes do increase. Of course, crimes are also redistributed away from the fatal kind (murder) and more towards the non-fatal kind (attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.). Still, if the arguement can be applied to guns, then why not knives? Why not bows? Why not anything that can kill and doesn't have an indispensable purpose?

 

Tal: Exactly, it's the Handguns that need to be controled most.

Martaug: With the gun registry, whenever the cops are called to a home for any intervention, they can check their computer to see if there are registered firearms. In most offenses, they sieze the guns as a precaution.

 

Yes to #1 - i have a fairly good size collection including models manufactured between the late 1880's to the present.

Yes to #2 - although i would classify it as fun just like others enjoy golf or tennis or any other activity that requires a level of commitment to be good at.

But mainly because i was raised in what in the states is refered to as the "gun culture" & also into a family culture of serving in the armed forces that goes back to the early to mid 1800's

I received my first .22 rifle for my 7th b-day, my first handgun was a Ruger Standard .22 i got for my 8th b-day.
By the time i was 10 i could fieldstrip an m-14 & m-16 blindfolded.
That comes from having a dad that was a marine for 20 years(& even worse a DI for 6 of those years).

I respect guns as just another tool to get a specific job done, no less & no more.

I personally don't understand people that aren't brought up to serve their country, it just doesn't seem normal to me.

 

I'm a city dweller too, and I use my .22 for target practice and general plinking, my 9mm is for home defense/target practice/general carry, and the shotgun I want will replace the 9mm's first job...and will also be used to blow up flying clay disks (clay pigeons). Down the line, I might even go turkey hunting with it...but the wife is against hunting, even though she *loves* turkey meat....

My dad has 2 .50Cal black powder rifles that are just for fun, his shotgun is for home defense/clay pigeon shooting, his 30-30 is for hunting...even though he hasn't been in 20+ years, his 2 pistols are for target practise, and is antique .22 rifle is (hopefully) part of my inheritance...

 

Excuse me, but how is bringing up in the spirit of serving the country directly related to the use/ownership of guns? Sure, that's one aspect, but definitely not the primary one.

Maintaining (possibly historical) collection of weapons, guns is fine (I like that), as well as for using it for sport shooting and such stuff (good too). As for collecting them for random shooting and fun, well, that's quite infantile IMO, but to each his own (everyone chooses hobbies on his or her own).

Apart from the fact it can be used for sport shooting or collections, I consider it an "on-demand" thing, and that can be considered typical in Europe IMO. If you need it for some reason (e.g. job -- in this case it's often mandatory -- but also for any ad hoc reason), you can get one. At the moment, I don't own a gun, but if needed, it wouldn't be hard to get one (even an AK47, illegal or not). But otherwise, why if I don't need it? Of course, I can understand that family traditions can be significant in this respect, i.e. a son of a soldier (e.g. in USA) might be taught that it's natural to have a gun at home (and anyway, as we've discussed in the other thread, US and Europe differs in the respect of gun ownerships at home). On the other hand, I think something is wrong if gun ownership/skills/usage is the primary thing that first occurs to someone when talking about serving the country.

 

but answers questions asked
Ah , i see where we are having a difference. You asked for why we have guns & listed 2 reasons however my primary reasons are not those.

It's a marine mentality. The saying is "every marine a rifleman" & is embodies in the riflemans creed.

The most important award a marine ever wears is his marksmanship badge not his purple hearts, silver or bronze stars, his service strips or any of his other medals.
None of those bring as much honor to him as that expert rating.

Oh, just so you know, please don't ever call someone an "ex-marine" it isn't taken well. "Prior-service marine" is fine & "retired marine" for those with 20+years service are acceptable if you don't want to use just plain "marine"

 

What I implied is that gun usage/skills is just a rather material, physical part of training when bringing up & teaching someone to serve the homeland & country. The primary thing is the mental education*; more precisely, I don't find it a requirement to have constant skills with guns for someone who wants to be a patriot: the importance of defending & serving the homeland first has to come from heart, and only then by gun or even pure fists. In other words, someone can still be ready to serve his or her homeland without possessing guns, if he/she is ready to defend the country when there is a need.

*Of course, I don't doubt that both of them (physical, mental) is present in families such as yours.

[By the way, I don't find this discussion off-topic; we're also analyzing why and how people support or refuse restrictive gun control, and military environment/education can seriously influence the attitude of people.]

 

I agree with your assessment that there are many ways to serve your country, in fact, i think those with special skills or knowledge can provide service via those means rather than thru military service.
However, i do think that everyone should serve their country in some way for 4-6 years. If we could get even 50% of the country to do this we could accomplish anything.

 

martaug, are you feeling OK? This is EXACTLY what Obama is proposing. That everyone should do a civil duty to the country. Not necessarily through the military, but serve in some capacity either on a local, state or national level. Although I believe he said it only had to be for 2 years, other than that your statements are strikingly similar.

 

It is just in the particulars that we differ. You know the old saying " the devil is in the details"
We are polar opposites on so many others though(ANWR drilling, nuclear energy, giving "tax breaks"(actually a payment) for people who don't pay taxes, etc...)

 

... and was an idea presented by Powell many years ago as 'volunteerism.'

 

And even further, think about what the US was able to accomplish in the 40's & 50's because most of america worked together to get things done

 

I apologize if this resurrection aggravates anyone, but Chandos stated something so eloquently in another thread that I couldn't help but apply it here, though I doubt seriously that he meant it to be applied to this topic (then again, IIRC, Chandos is a self-proclaimed libertarian, so perhaps I'm wrong.)

This sums up my feelings perfectly. When it comes to a non-criminal having a gun that he uses for non-criminal purposes, anyone who says "no one needs a gun" can, IMHO, stick it sideways. It is not my place to dictate to others what they "need" and the converse is also true -- it is not the place of anyone in a free society to dictate to fellow non-criminal citizens what they "need" either.

I bow to Chandos' skill with the written word.

 

I think you're confusing "needs" with "wants".

(And in retrospect, I think CTR was as well in the other thread, although that didn't occur to me at the time, mainly because I generally agreed with his point. In the context of his post, the difference between "need" and "want", while still relevant, is not IMO as significant as it is with respect to gun control.)

 

Fair enough -- I can understand the government, acting as the voice of the people, telling people that there are some guns and weapons that there is just no logical reason for a law abiding citizen to have -- I don't think I've ever said I advocate totally unrestricted gun controls -- for example, armour piercing bullets -- what possible legal reason would a person have for owning such a thing? But, I have heard people say things to people like Kitrax like "I don't see why you need a handgun." Well, my answer is that he has a non-criminal use for it (it's his hobby) and that what they think he "needs" or doesn't "need" isn't relevant -- he wants it, he uses it non-criminally, he follows rules for keeping it out of the hands of criminals, so what's the big deal?

I just resent the idea of individual people who have different hobbies from me telling me or other law abiding CITIZENS! what we need or don't need -- the government doing it as a whole, balancing the rights of society against the risks, that I can get behind, at least to a reasonable degree.

 

I'm not against the right to bear arms at all. However, I believe the interpretations by the NRA are a little overboard. That you feel the need to protect your family with a gun is fine -- it is a right. I just don't believe that right automatically should extend to any type of gun. That you "want" a AK-47 (like the one that was used on Halloween) or a Desert Eagle is a step beyond your "needs".

I would not mind a ban on all assault weapons, and automatic capable weapons. I would further support a licensing program for all pistols -- with a required training program (NRA certified, of course).

"law abiding criminals" great typo....

 

T2Bruno, the problem with that isn't the idea (I completely agree), but rather the application. The ban on so-called 'assault weapons' actually banned a lot of non-assault weapons and left some truely horrendous weapons in stores.

I'd say bans are ok for fully-automatic, maybe semi-automatic weapons, armor-piercing rounds (note, it's the rounds here, not the guns that can fire them), and maybe anything over a certain caliber.

 

Don't you have farms there? Farmers use their gun to put down a sick animal in a humane manner, kill predators and to humanely kill an animal that they plan to eat. Don't people hunt in Europe? There are animals we can hunt here, and they taste good. You need a gun to kill them.

That said, I do agree that there can and should be some limits on these guns and who can have them, but don't come right out and take them from us...