Cindy and I were talking about gun control on Friday, and neither of us could decide where we stood on the issue.
(She sent me this article, to show me why she thinks the 2nd Amendment lobby has such a bad name.) According to Ted Nugent, this week’s tragedy in
Although I sometimes agree with the argument that it’s our God given right to be free and own guns, I don’t think that's an argument that everyone can use. It’s my God given right to distill alcohol and sell it on Sundays, but the State of Indiana doesn't agree with me.
I just don’t want to hear people say that our government should step up the war on drugs, ban abortion, allow domestic wire tapping, give police more discretion in searches and seizures, ban gay marriage, and then say that they’ve got the God given right to own a gun.
(I guess I think that way because I’m not a “good versus evil” guy.)
Anyway, there’s a part of me that thinks if people were walking around with guns all day, there'd probably be an increase in gun related crime. Think of all the bar fights that happen in
But I don’t necessarily buy the argument that we should ban guns. Would tighter gun control laws have kept the
What about the fact that some people just like to hunt, or shoot skeet, or target practice. And some people feel safer with a gun in the house.
I guess I could do some research and read a bunch of articles and opinions about gun control, but I worked six days this week, and the last thing I want to do is spend my Sunday morning reading scholarly articles. So I’d like to try something knew. I’d like to hear like to hear your thoughts on gun control since I am having a difficult time organizing my own. How do you guys feel about the issue?
13 comments:
I don't think different gun control laws would neccessarily have had any effect on the VAtech shooting. I agree that if someone decides they want to shoot a bunch of people, "but i don't have a weapon" is not going to be the deciding factor. but I also don't see a difference between believing it's your god-given right to own a gun and believing it's your god-given right to shoot people. I think you can put hunting aside. I don't know much about guns, but it seems like (1) hunting could be separately regulated, and (2) hunting enthusiasm doesn't elicit the same god-given right argument as weapons for self-defense. So as far as guns owned for the purpose of shooting people, I just don't want to live in that kind of environment. I also don't really like the good guy- bad guy distinctions that come with that argument- like we responsible, decent people are only going to shoot bad criminals, we'll use our guns to perform these great heroic acts (I just don't hear about that happening very often. Isn't that why we have a trained police force?) What if I'm in the way when you're trying to shoot someone to protect yourself? (Also, your bar fight example, or domestic disputes). I can't see where it's much of a deterrent either, to a would-be criminal, that the person whose house you are robbing might be able to shoot you. Wouldnt you just be sure to bring a gun? I think more guns owned by non-criminals means more guns owned by everybody, means more gun violence.
Julia
i agree with julia.
Thanks Julia,
Like you said, I wonder how often gun owners actually save lives using their guns?
If it happens as rarely as you and I think it does, a gun law would seem like a good idea because we'd take a lot of guns off the street, with a minimal reduction in actual self defense.
But who knows, maybe gun owners save lives every day ;)
however, something that concerned me was that Canada's gun control laws are almost non-existent, yet their gun violence rate is much less than the U.S. (I think I heard that on a Michael Moore movie, so who knows), (I think I read it in a book too, but I'm not sure)
something to think about
I think US gun control laws are just fine the way they are.
I don't give a crap about gun control. I'm just glad i'm finally off the hotseat. I still can't believe i got fired for that shit...
You have to keep in mind that if the US makes it more and more difficult to get a handgun, there will potentially be an increase in the amount of suicide bombings. Scenario: Cho can't get his hands on a gun, he has no resources to purchase a gun on the street, so Cho, crazy and derranged, learns to make bombs. He was already planning on a bunch of innocent people, and then killing himself anyways, so why doesn't he do what his evil counterparts overseas have been doing for decades...blow up the whole spot, including himself! So now, more and more sick individuals planning to commit heinous crimes (including their own suicide) start learning how to build bombs and follow through with their plots. See, with guns, hostages at least have a shot (no pun intended) of getting out alive. One of the hostages may be a hero and tries to take the terrorist from behind. Or a few people get hit in the leg/shoulder, but they still live to tell the story. But with bombs, everyone dies! And the very few that are lucky enough to live (I don't even know if lucky is the right word) will probably be horribly disfigured or even burned beyond recognition! These are just a few random thoughts in response to what tighter gun control laws could bring on. Just be careful what you wish for.
-Juice
I used to think: give everyone a gun, even out the game...
Now, I am not so sure. Many people can barely mangage to keep a car on the road. I went through the extensive marksman ship training, but I also went through the shoot/don't shoot training. Then I was required to do it again every quarter.
I am all for everyone keeping whatever guns they want at home, but there needs to be some kind of evaluation for carry permits. I was always worried some idiot third party would shoot me as I was lining up a bad guy in my sights.
I am not worried about bars or brawls. Even if you are allowed to carry, it is usually still against the law to be intoxicated or brandish. Private businesses always have the right to post No Firearm signs and deny service. If you're law abiding, you won't risk a weapons charge. Or if you do, your priviledge is taken away.
DP
I don't think any man should have a gun. Not a one. Especially not Dirk.
I believe that "hunting" is a fundamental character flaw. Who goes out into the woods, see's a beautiful Elk, or a majestic Bighorn sheep carfully balancing itself across a mountain, or a line of little ducklings following its momma and says..."Jesus, I'd love to rip a bullet through that." ?? It's 2007, people. This is why we invented slaughterhouses.
I think only women should be allowed to carry guns. They can't fight, so they need them. And they don't have penises, so they need them.
I used to think that any man who had a penis under two inches in length should be able to carry one, too. It would make them feel better, calm them down, and perhaps make them less dangerous. So, only women and Tony Piccuta could carry guns. But now, with this asian guy shooting up VT, I think I've changed my mind.
Only women.
The only thing that will change re america's gun control laws is a tightening up of the laws already in place especially in terms of mentally ill and state vs. federal reporting requirements. Other than that, getting serious about gun control is political suicide even for democrats. Everyone (except mentally ill people) can agree that seriously mentally ill people should not be able to purchase guns even if they can get them otherwise (at least it is more difficult). The problem is determining who is seriously mentally ill, especially considering how crazy our society is in general (just look at our psychopathic administration). This issue was brought up by this kid Allen Lee getting arrested (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070425essay,1,696682.story?ctrack=1&cset=true ). This kid Allen Lee probably should have known better than to write the crap he did like 4 days after Cho, but people can't be surprised when young people write shit that reflects completely over-the-top violence considering the tv (especially news), video games, movies, etc. we all see everyday. He was arrested for writing a essay that included dreams about killing people then fucking them after teacher told the students to write whatever comes to mind uncensored. ARRESTED!!! If the guy is mentally ill, then get him some counseling, but arrest him? For what? People are so willing to protect the 2nd amendment, but so willing to throw the rest of the constitution out the window.
In sum, we are fucked.
The only thing that will change re america's gun control laws is a tightening up of the laws already in place especially in terms of mentally ill and state vs. federal reporting requirements. Other than that, getting serious about gun control is political suicide even for democrats. Everyone (except mentally ill people) can agree that seriously mentally ill people should not be able to purchase guns even if they can get them otherwise (at least it is more difficult). The problem is determining who is seriously mentally ill, especially considering how crazy our society is in general (just look at our psychopathic administration). This issue was brought up by this kid Allen Lee getting arrested (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070425essay,1,696682.story?ctrack=1&cset=true ). This kid Allen Lee probably should have known better than to write the crap he did like 4 days after Cho, but people can't be surprised when young people write shit that reflects completely over-the-top violence considering the tv (especially news), video games, movies, etc. we all see everyday. He was arrested for writing a essay that included dreams about killing people then fucking them after teacher told the students to write whatever comes to mind uncensored. ARRESTED!!! If the guy is mentally ill, then get him some counseling, but arrest him? For what? People are so willing to protect the 2nd amendment, but so willing to throw the rest of the constitution out the window.
In sum, we are fucked.
I heard a little bit about what Allan Lee wrote, but I had no idea that he was arrested. My initial reaction to that was, "arrested for what?"
So I looked it up and found that he was charged with "disorderly conduct." Seems a bit vague, so I looked it up,
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace
(the rest of the statute gives examples)
That seems to be a bit vague. Instead of charging him with a misdemeanor, maybe they should get him some counseling, or make sure that no one sells him a gun.
That is obviously a bullshit charge. Any prosecutor who does not immediately throw that file into the wastebasket should be fired.
He shouldn't even bother to nulle prosse it, or dismiss it. He should just throw it away. When it gets called on the docket by the judge, the prosecutor should just say, "Yeah, judge, I just threw that file away." And the judge will just nod, and move on.
and then someone should shoot the fucking principal...
JUST KIDDING!! DON'T ARREST ME!!
and have sex with his corpse...
REALLY JUST KIDDING, I REALLY DIDN'T MEAN THAT ONE!
...even though i bet that principal's corpse has a tight little...
Post a Comment