I saw a gun control debate and really, really, really wanted to stay out of it. My feelings really do go both ways on this. I think guns are cowardly and murderous, but also think the populace needs a means to protect themselves (?) from a tyrannical government. But then I think, well, the government will take it if they want it, so really, what’s the use? Sensible (ha!) Citizen vs. Miss Conspiracy Theorist. And ’round and ’round I go with that issue. Still, the discussion at Lucyp’s is interesting.
This is what I had to say:
I know I’m late, please forgive me.
I agree with Joe. People kill people using guns as a means, and most of those people doing the killing (at least in the U.S.) are cowards who wouldn’t last 5 seconds in hand-to-hand combat- and most wouldn’t even try. Take away the guns and the cowards won’t have any means of killing. They’d be too busy pissing their pants to pick up that knife to stab someone. And they wouldn’t be killing innocent bystanders with their stray shots.
I know for a fact I can take a 6 ft. 200 lb. man with a knife in combat- I’ve been trained. But if that slimy bastard decided to whip out a .36 (that he stole from a local collector, for instance) behind my back I’d be toast. So, there’s a huge difference in killing someone with a knife - because that someone really does have more of a chance- and killing someone with a speeding bullet.
Ok, so let me modify my opening. It’s bullets that are what’s so dangerous about guns- bullets kill people. Take away the bullets and you can have your gun, because then if that slimy bastard coward robs your house and steals your guns he won’t be able to shoot me in the back.
I say bring back real courage and get rid of the props.
I know how most feel, but I’d like a little more detail and I’m pretty sure I don’t know how a couple of people (who frequent this joint) feel about it. I’m just really curious.
And, yes, I take Constitutional issues very seriously. Unlike some others, I don’t think this country was founded on the Bible. It was our Constitution and it’s our Constitution that makes this country great.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
Powered by FireStats
16 Comments
I take a practical view: guns are here, zillions of them. Criminalizing gun ownership isn’t going to stop bad peeps from having guns, only good peeps. So I’m against it in that sense. In a philosophical sense, I’m against ordinary people having guns (as opposed to cops and soldiers). As you say, you can pick up another weapon, but most of ‘em aren’t going to take out a roomful of people in 30 seconds. They aren’t going to help you against the gov’t either - that’s a silly argument nowadays. If there’s a place without guns, I say keep ‘em out. But that isn’t the U.S., unfortunately.
The most interesting thing to come out of this debate was just how different Americans and Brits view guns. As us Brits have no culture of gun ownership, they remain scary and dangerous things to us while they seem to be accepted as everyday things in the USA. Certainly got a few peoples backs up.
Paula,
Exactly my point. I think. I think that having guns to form militias and such is outdated, but that was the point of the amendment. To make sure that the people could control their own country. It still didn’t work. And if we went up in arms against the gv’t now we’d be blown to bits. Blah! And honest people with guns get robbed of those guns by not-so-honest jerkwads. Then BLAMMO! Someone’s child dies. I’m seeing it from all directions, but leaning to serious gun control (and my state just lifted the ban on assault rifles, because, you know, they’re all good and shit).
Lucyp,
Welcome! Glad you stopped over. You’re right. I was raised around guns (usually the illegal variety) and watching “cowboys and Indians” was a Saturday morning staple for me as I was growing up. I do think you had some compelling arguments though. And I disagreed wholeheartedly with the “Cars kill people too” thing. It’s true, they do, but usually not intentionally. Oh well.
Is your nearest cross street “Fillmore”, by any chance?
Bart Loretto.
Hmmm…
I moved it for you, dahling.- JJ
Aw crap, that comment was supposed to go on your name post.
Hmm, I would disagree that guns are “everyday things” in America. Yes they are pervasive in popular culture — gun violence and guns themselves are all throughout our movies and TV shows. I think if you removed from TV any primetime show with a plot line that involved a gun or someone assaulted with a firearm, you’d be pretty much left with To Catch a Predator, American Idol and Gilmore Girls. Okay maybe not that extreme, but most of the CBS lineup revolves around crime and usually gun violence.
But on the street in your day to day life, do most Americans see a gun aside from on the hip of a police officer? And even then you don’t see it used or even aimed at anyone. If they are drawn you definitely take notice and it’s not like “oh a gun, lalalala” — it’s oh shit time.
I’m not a gun nut, I don’t own one, but I grew up in a house with guns. And I like the fact that I have the right to own one for home protection if I so chose. Law-abiding people should have the right to legally own a gun because criminals WILL get them by illegal means no matter what law is on the books.
Oh and statistically, more kids die by accidentally drowning in swimming pools than finding a gun in a house and playing with it and accidentally getting shot. Yet we don’t stop our kids from going over to their friends houses that have pools… Just something to think about.
We also have laws making gun owners responsible for harm caused by a child gaining access. This encourages proper storage.
I oppose more control because a) virtually all the danger comes from people who live outside the law, and b) so long as I’m not harming anyone, a free country should not be concerned with my possessions.
(a) is modified by moments of passion that go horribly wrong when a gun is available. But these are in my opinion better addressed through proper storage and the encouragement of a mature attitude towards the things, than simply banning them. (An outright ban is the only way to reduce the risk in those cases.)
(b) is modified when we talk about public health issues, i.e. I can’t own explosives, or build a cement plant in my yard. But my firearms are a danger to no one, unless stolen, and that kind of goes back to (a).
As for the 2nd Amdmt angle, I agree it’s ludicrous to think a few guys with small arms can hold off a modern army. However, the worst atrocities in other countries occur when small bands of renegade police (”death squads”) can go home to home. The horror stories out of El Salvador, Haiti etc would not have been possible if those were generally armed populaces, and the police were themselves accustomed to an armed populace hence less likely to be the type to take their gun-carrying privelege to such an extreme in the first place.
“Oh and statistically, more kids die by accidentally drowning in swimming pools than finding a gun in a house and playing with it and accidentally getting shot. Yet we don’t stop our kids from going over to their friends houses that have pools… Just something to think about.”
Thank you very much…
do most Americans see a gun aside from on the hip of a police officer?
No. But guns are part of every day life in rural areas. Kids in these parts are let out of school to go hunting with the family in November. And in some parts of cities kids grow up seeing guns every day.
When I say a child dies, I mean in drive-by situations, not at-home accidents (or even hunting accidents). I’m not talking about statistics. Death-by-swimming-accident isn’t a usual m.o. for gangster murders, nor are swimming pools used in violent crimes. Like I told someone else, guns were originally designed to kill and that is still their sole purpose.
As for the 2nd Amdmt angle, I agree it’s ludicrous to think a few guys with small arms can hold off a modern army. However, the worst atrocities in other countries occur when small bands of renegade police (”death squads”) can go home to home. The horror stories out of El Salvador, Haiti etc would not have been possible if those were generally armed populaces, and the police were themselves accustomed to an armed populace hence less likely to be the type to take their gun-carrying privelege to such an extreme in the first place.
This is an excellent argument and, honestly, one I’d never encountered. Still, do you think that there would be enough armed Americans willing to take on the government, if it should ever come to that? Do you honestly think that having an armed populace would deter the government from making us prisoners in our own country? Are Americans, in general, strong and brave enough to say “This is my goddamned country and I’ll be damned if it becomes a dictatorship” and pull out their guns? Personally, I think most Americans have grown so dependent on the government and have come to view the government as the absolutepower that they wouldn’t know what to do if it came down to fighting or losing it all. We see images like David Koresh and Ruby Ridge and think “Wow, what a bunch of raving lunatics!” but that’s how the government handles groups that rise up and threaten the status quo.
I understand your argument and it makes some great brain food, but I’m not sure it’s all together realistic the way things are now.
Schad, when my kids were little I didn’t let them go to houses with pools unless I was there too. Now they know how to swim, so it’s okay. Most people do not install pools or drive cars in order to kill others, but the main purpose of a gun is to kill. If I knew someone kept guns in their home, I wouldn’t want my kids over there, even though I do understand there are legitimate reasons to own one. It’s too late to get rid of them here, I think, which is too bad.
Please do keep in mind that I’m completely on the fence with this one. I can see both sides of the argument. And I’m not really debating anyone. I’m just spouting off the first thing that comes to my mind.:) I’m good like that, dontcha know.
Schad, when my kids were little I didn’t let them go to houses with pools unless I was there too.
Good point, Paula. I never allow my kids to go swimming without supervision and I don’t think any responsible parent would. And as with the car thing, I told someone in an email:
“I don’t think that equating them with guns is accurate at all. Personally, I’m deathly afraid of cars- but not because someone might brandish one in a holdup at a convenience store I’m standing in. People are just stupid in cars. I wasn’t arguing the statistics of guns vs. cars, because, to me, they’re just not equal.”
I think that applies to the pools too (except I don’t have a fear of pools, being the best floater around and all).
I’m terrified of cars. I wish there was a way we could get rid of them without destroying our economy!
JJ said: “guns were originally designed to kill and that is still their sole purpose.”
On the raison d’etre of guns, I’m going to posit that a gun has three main purposes, not just one: 1) to kill/eliminate a threat, 2) to intimidate, coerce or threaten and 3) to serve as a deterrent and provide security. For example, the guns my father owned were never fired to kill in the 18 years I lived at home. They were however carried by my father on his person when LAPD helicopters got a little too close which usually indicated some crime or criminal was about in the area and he wanted to be prepared. Guns, like most things can be used for positive or negative purposes even to the extent of causing extensive bodily harm to innocent people — just like cars, explosives, acids or even a brick. Yes, I concede an AK-47 will take out a room full of people faster than a brick and are more dangerous in that respect, but I think what a society should be focusing on primarily is not the tools a criminal employs, but the motive for his actions. Gun control and crime control are not one in the same.
My point on the pool thing was only to illustrate that there are other things just as or more dangerous than guns, even if their stated purpose isn’t to maim or kill. But that doesn’t detract from the inherent danger. It’s not the time you go over to supervise the kids swimming that they get hurt or drown in the neighbor’s pool, it’s the time when a responsible adult is not around that a drowning happens. A similar argument can be made for gun ownership — with proper supervision and respect it’s just as safe… or unsafe. The crucial difference is we don’t think of potentially outlawing pools based on that rationale.
I hear the point on guns giving gang-bangin punks the means to inflict pain and death on a grander scale than bats and knives. However, the guns the Woods Village Crips and Shotgun Crips who were near where I grew up weren’t getting their firearms legally. Any laws banning guns would have meant my father didn’t have a gun, and those assholes did.
Like you JJ, I’m not really on a side on this. I like throwing out other views in the spirit of open and spirited debate. But I think I do see the rationale of the argument that laws banning guns don’t help and actually hurt law-abiding citizens and do nothing to thwart criminals who will get guns regardless of the law.
Do you honestly think that having an armed populace would deter the government from making us prisoners in our own country?
That’s the question, isn’t it. The making us into prisoners would happen (if it isn’t happening already) by incremental changes in law. Since it wouldn’t happen overnight, we are being led (some believe) away from freedom by steps too small for us to protest. So, the answer I’m afraid is no. If say there’s a nuclear terrorist attack and martial law is declared and they go too far with it, our somewhat armed populace won’t be able to do a lot about it. On the other hand, maybe there will be just enough isolated but painful incidents of the law-abiding protecting their castles that police authorities will reconsider. I dunno. Hope I never find out.
Re: the swimming pool, I think there’s been a slight misunderstanding about my point of view.
When I say that guns and swimming pools are not the same, I’m not arguing the statistics of total deaths by each. In my mind (which sometimes makes no sense) I don’t include accidental deaths- by anything. Accidental deaths occur in the most mundane ways (choking on bread or an aspirin, for example) and including those in any argument would take too much time, energy, and really just inflate the stats, in my opinion. I told someone else that I can’t recall reading anywhere that swimming pools have been used in a holdup.
I mention the bad guys because they tend to steal the guns that belong to the good guys (meaning responsible folk). I know that they don’t come by them legally because, well, then they’d be more easily traced and a good criminal (ha!) doesn’t want to be found. I think, though, that gun safes and keeping the bullets separate from the gun would, maybe, deter some criminals.
The making us into prisoners would happen (if it isn’t happening already) by incremental changes in law. Since it wouldn’t happen overnight, we are being led (some believe) away from freedom by steps too small for us to protest.
Exactly. And people are too apathetic and/or naive to take a real stand and realize that we are the power and they work for us. But I think I’m going off on a tangent on something completely different there, so I will simply say “Right on”.