When I was a child I played cops and robbers like any normal little boy. Like most childhood games of this kind, cops and robbers often involved a certain amount of dressing up, running around excitedly, and much shouting, screaming, and “pow pow” gun noises as we enjoyed shooting at one another in the ongoing chase.
As a child I had a number of pistols, my favorite being a large red gun with a bright orange handle. Another was an elaborate silver rifle that doubled as a machine gun in my young imagination when the need for a machine gun arose. “Bang bang, you’re dead!” Would be followed quickly by an elaborate roll and a few moments of stillness before we leapt back to our feet to continue the game as someone who hadn’t yet been killed. Our innocent games would see us dying time and time again in the wonderfully simple world that children enjoy.
The funny thing is that ordinary British cops don’t carry guns, so in reality the cops and robbers we were playing were American, just like the ones we watched on TV in shows like CHiPs, and T.J. Hooker. A truly British version of the game would have simply involved the cop running after the robber until the robber got tired and gave up, and when you’re six there’s just no fun in that.
It would be twenty or so years later when I would get the opportunity to fire a real gun. I was at a friends house in New Hampshire where, upon learning that I had never fired a gun before and despite the late hour, her father got out a couple of his guns for me to shoot.
“Just kind of aim down the barrel, you can’t see tonight anyway, but you can see some. It’ll make a big noise” Said Karen’s father as I lifted the rifle with no real idea of what the heck I was doing. “Hit that chair over there.” He said pointing out into the darkness.
The chair survived my poor shooting, but the bang was fantastic and filled my blood with adrenalin. I had never doubted the thrill of firing a gun, and the reality of it, complete with the flash from the barrel and the ear shattering bang, was brilliantly exciting. There’s no doubt, I can see the appeal to owning and firing guns.
The post I made last week, entitled Where is the war on guncrime about America’s seemingly out of control gun crime rate, prompted hot debate receiving ten times the amount of comments I would usually expect. Curiously though, only one of those who spoke up in defense of the American ‘right to bear arms’ actually owned a gun, the others it would seem, we’re just arguing in defense of their right to have the choice to bear arms or not.
Those arguing for their right to choose to own a gun, the ‘pro-choice’ people if you will, wrongly assumed that my ‘pro-life’ stance of wanting to see “sensible gun control” meant that I wanted to ban all guns.
Just like other ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ arguments, it seems that despite the vast area of ‘middle ground’ on the issue, people feel the need to stick a flag in the ground at the far ends of the field then stand behind that flag and hurl abuse at the other side.
The problem is that when someone goes on a shooting rampage like Cho Seung-hui did last week at Virginia Tech, the gun control debate becomes entangled in emotion and then places the focus on the wrong problem. Cho Seung-hui had serious mental health problems, and no amount of gun control would have made him any less mentally troubled.
The basis of the gun control argument should not be made up of landmark events like last weeks school shootings because the fact remains that vast numbers of people die each year in the United States because of guns. Enacting tighter controls on who has access to guns and ammunition is an entirely rational way to reduce the number of people killed by guns.
Adam Gopnik of the New Yorker recently wrote “The point of lawmaking is not to act as precisely as possible, in order to punish the latest crime; it is to act as comprehensively as possible, in order to prevent the next one.”
With that in mind here are my proposals for changes to gun laws:
(Note: These are not my hard and fast set-in-stone ideas. They’re merely proposals that I think sensible people would be able to debate in the understanding that while there would be disagreement, there are surely ways in which discussion can lead to progress and improvements.)
STEP 1 : LEGALLY DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT A “WELL REGULATED MILITIA” IS, AND HOW EXACTLY THAT WILL BE REGULATED.
It seems to me that gun regulation isn’t something new but it is instead something that America has overlooked in the second amendment.
STEP 2 : BAN ALL HAND GUNS, PERIOD.
People do not need handguns. They provide an illusion of safety when in fact they are weapons designed primarily to kill. Obviously some exemptions will apply for police officers etc. But the days of buying a handgun to “protect yourself” should be over. If you really feel insecure, buy a rifle!
STEP 3 : BETTER BACKGROUND CHECKS
Cho Seung-hui was nuts, yet he was still allowed to walk into a gun shop and buy handguns despite the fact a judge also cited him as a danger to himself and others. These background checks should check criminal and mental background information.
STEP 4 : BAN ALL ASSULT WEAPONS
Again, special circumstances apply but regular citizens will not be allowed to own weapons that are designed specifically for war.
STEP 5 : START A NATIONAL FIREARM REGISTER.
This will disable people from, for example, selling there guns for $50 to some redneck yahoo who just got done serving time for beating on his wife. Guns would only be sold to people with firearms permits which would clearly state what guns the person can own and does own.
STEP 6 : INTRODUCE A 5 DAY WAIT PERIOD AFTER PURCHASING A GUN.
If you want to buy a gun, then there should be no rush. A mandatory delay between paying the the weapon and actually collecting it should pose no serious inconvenience to anyone who wants to have a gun for legitimate uses.
STEP 7 : INTRODUCE GUN CABINETS STANDARDS WHERE GUNS MUST BE KEPT.
Requiring that citizens keep their shotguns, rifles and ammunition in a safe cabinet that meets a governed standard would again pose little inconvenience to any peaceful gun owner. The cabinet would increase the security of the weapons in a burglary and fire situation to.
STEP 8 : INTRODUCE TOUGH LAWS MAKING CARRYING A GUN IN A CRIME EXTREMELY ILL ADVISED.
Mandatory minimum sentences are pretty much worthless, so while this measure seems logical I would imagine it would be the least effective of all the measures I propose. However I still believe that the punishment for going equipped to commit murder should be almost as serious as committing the murder itself.
If you think you have better proposals or if you disagree with mine then feel free to comment below.
—
Shootings : New Yorker article by Adam Gopnik
Close the gun control loophole
We wouldn’t have to shoot burglars if the law did its job
Me shooting guns in New Hampshire!
Gun related news
Gun laws : State by state
Wrote the following comment on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:04 pm
A lot of your suggestions now actually exist here in Australia Simon.
Most ordinary citizens have to prove they have an absolutely valid reason for “needing” to own a gun.
Our gun laws here became very much controlled after a horrid massacre in Tasmania a number of years ago.
There are very severe penalties for owning firearms without permits now and many guns meant for battle/war are now banned.
This coming weekend, I will be taking my family to our local firing range for a Free Shoot Day, so that my kids can experience in a safe environment the sport of target shooting. I have no problems with shooting as a sport at all. But by the same token I wouldn’t want to have a gun in my house for whatever reason. Guns are as unpredictable as the people who may use them.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Yeah I’ve read quite a bit about those new(ish) Australian laws including this report yesterday.
The proposals I suggest are actually pretty much the same as UK gun laws where it’s important to remember that not even our police carry guns for “protection”, despite all kinds of statistics that were recently banded around on this blog citing the UK as a far more dangerous place than the United States.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:51 pm
These sound sensible suggestions to me Simon. How about making the wait time for a gun a little longer – maybe 15 days. This would deter any on the spot purchases.
However I still have to question why members of the public need guns at all. Fair enough if you want to take part in shooting as a sport, thats fine but surely there should be licensed clubs for this sort of thing where the guns are stored (using the storage laws you have described above) and not removed from the premises. After all if you take them away then your are not going to be using them as the sport?
Wrote the following comment on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I’ve had handguns, rifles, and shotguns in my house since my children were born, and that was 24 years ago now. From the time I was 10 years old I’ve been doing some sort of firearm sports. Safety has always been the emphasis, to the point that if we went on a bird hunt and showed up to find other hunters with both guns and alcohol on hand we’d ask them to leave the field, or we would leave if they refused. There has never been an incident of injury except to the birds, which we always cleaned, cooked, and ate. I am planning another such hunt for late summer.
I have taught many people to shoot firearms, including my children. We always start out with safety, and gun handling. We also start with small calibers as their recoil is easier to control (muzzle flip in handguns).
I also reload my handgun ammunition. Once again safety is paramount when handling gunpowder and the pressures achieved in brass cartridges. Dependable reloading data is always used, and their data never exceeded. Quality materials are also used for the sake of safety. I never load self-defense ammunition as that can be conceived of as “premeditation” should I ever have need to defend myself or my family, so I only keep “major label” self-defense loads in my “readily accessible” weapon.
As you can tell, safety and forethought go into everything I do regarding the handling and enjoyment of firearms. I will always stay away from gun-toting bubbas who see their gun as an extension of their manhood. And I’ll not have a problem with reasonable gun control, though I disagree with Simon on what that might look like.
Safe shooting everyone!
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 12:21 am
I’m going to go ahead and agree with dgausepohl. I think I’ll just go down the list of ideas you had for gun control, and address the ones that i feel strongly about, one way or the other.
“STEP 2 : BAN ALL HAND GUNS, PERIOD.
People do not need handguns. They provide an illusion of safety when in fact they are weapons designed primarily to kill.”
-All guns are weapons designed primarily to kill. The handgun is no different. The reason why cops in America carry them is the same reason why so many of our citizens do: they’re relatively cheap, reliable, and portable. “Carrying” a rifle for protection doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, since that can’t be conveniently carried on your person day to day. Since a gun can’t do you a whole lot of good unless it’s with you, it makes sense that people carry the most conveniently sized weapon for self-defense.
“STEP 3 : BETTER BACKGROUND CHECKS
Cho Seung-hui was nuts, yet he was still allowed to walk into a gun shop and buy handguns despite the fact a judge also cited him as a danger to himself and others. These background checks should check criminal and mental background information.”
-I agree. Gun dealers need to be held to a higher standard on who they sell to.
“STEP 4 : BAN ALL ASSULT WEAPONS
Again, special circumstances apply but regular citizens will not be allowed to own weapons that are designed specifically for war.”
-The main issue here is how you define an “Assault Weapon.” I believe current laws define an “assault weapon” as a gun possessing three or more of a list of characteristics, such as pistol grips, fully automatic fire, collapsible stocks, bayonets [!!], etc… I may be wrong on this, but that’s how i understand it. I don’t think people “need” to be able to own AK’s or anything, personally.
“STEP 5 : START A NATIONAL FIREARM REGISTER.
This will disable people from, for example, selling there guns for $50 to some redneck yahoo who just got done serving time for beating on his wife. Guns would only be sold to people with firearms permits which would clearly state what guns the person can own and does own.”
-History shows us that governments who register all guns typically end up confiscating most/all of them shortly afterwards. Also, most gun violence happens in the city, not the country, so I would argue that “rednecks” aren’t anywhere near being the worst source of violence in America. They are kinda crazy, though.
“STEP 6 : INTRODUCE A 5 DAY WAIT PERIOD AFTER PURCHASING A GUN.
If you want to buy a gun, then there should be no rush. A mandatory delay between paying the the weapon and actually collecting it should pose no serious inconvenience to anyone who wants to have a gun for legitimate uses.”
-This is alright.
“STEP 7 : INTRODUCE GUN CABINETS STANDARDS WHERE GUNS MUST BE KEPT.
Requiring that citizens keep their shotguns, rifles and ammunition in a safe cabinet that meets a governed standard would again pose little inconvenience to any peaceful gun owner. The cabinet would increase the security of the weapons in a burglary and fire situation to.”
-I’m really against this. In order for a gun to be useful for personal defense, it must be easily accessible. Naturally, this is a problem if kids are in the house. I’d leave it up to the gun-owners to decide where to strike the balance between accessibility to them and inaccessibility to their kids/anyone else. The government is not our father. There’s a need for people to take individual responsibility for their actions. If someone is really stupid and leaves guns just lying around and someone gets hurt because of it, then they should be prosecuted ruthlessly. We really need to leave this up to the people, though.
To sum things up: One of the most important reasons for gun ownership goes far beyond mere self-defense. In my mind, the most important reason is to check the government’s power. If people are left with few options to defend themselves, the government can just do whatever it wants. Hitler confiscated guns from the Germans early in his rule, and he did it for a reason. Checking the government’s power by having plenty of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is one of the main reasons for the second amendment.
Anyways, there’s my two [or more] cents. I like how you start debates like this. It’s important to talk about how things should be, especially in the wake of a tragedy like the VA Tech. shooting.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 1:14 am
David, you say you don’t agree with me, but you are no more specific than that? I can’t understand how a responsible gun owner like yourself could object to gun controls that would simply make everyone even safer. I’m sure you agree with most of what I wrote right? It’s just the small details that you probably have a difference on?
Jeff, it’s interesting that you chose to gloss over point number 1. Gun regulation is right there in the second amendment, it’s been overlooked, but it’s right there. In truth I think if they tackled point one then the other points would simply become a part of that first one.
You mention protection and handguns etc. But I can’t really take anyone’s points on handgun protection issues serious unless they carry a handgun.
If you don’t believe in their protective power enough to holster one yourself every day then as far as I am concerned you are speaking louder by your actions than your words and, no pun intended, but you’re shooting your ‘protection’ argument in the foot.
But Jeff, you do raise the actual constitutional point of owning a gun, so that you and your militia buddies can keep the government in check. But Jeff, do you really believe that? I mean yes, that might of worked when there were just over 3 million people living in a largely un-policed United States around 1776, but these days I think if the government decided to overthrow your little army of militia men, they wouldn’t have too much trouble.
The fact is, you’re not a member of a “well regulated militia”. If you were then maybe, just maybe you’d stand a chance in some kind of uprising. But the truth is as long as you (we) can all eat burgers, watch whatever TV we like, and freely choose what band of beer to gulp down, we’re unlikely to ever really be moved enough to join a militia to overthrow the government.
I’m all for you guys having some guns. I’m very much a second amendment advocate. I whole heartily support the rights of a “well regulated militia” to “bear arms”.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 2:43 am
I’m going to go ahead and defer to the wisdom of the Founders – they were a lot smarter than me:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
—George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment (Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788)
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?
—Patrick Henry (At the Ratification Convention for the Virginia Constitution, 1788)
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. —Thomas Paine
No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson (Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334)
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 3:22 am
Brewster, them is some mighty fine quotes you got there my friend.
But you’re point is lost on me? You are surely not trying to suggest that you are somehow more free than I am are you? And if so then maybe you can explain exactly how you are more free, and please don’t equate freedom to purchasing power.
It’s all very interesting to read the quotes of these historical figures (whom incidentally considered black people to be worth no more than three fifths of a white man), but I see no actual points being made.
I’ll assume then that you are merely affirming your belief and faith in the second amendment, and like me you are keen to see the regulation part of that historical text enforced of the well regulated militia that you will be happy to become part of in order to rise up against your government should they ever do anything like, I dunno, lie about the need for war or something.
I’m not trying to stir you into banging some empty historical gong Brewster, I’m trying to challenge you to think about how hard to bang it given that it clearly mentions gun regulations which unreasonable people seem unable to accept in any useful form.
So keep reading your history my friend. Then maybe you’ll be in a position to address my first point in the list above.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 4:20 am
Well, first, i don’t have any “militia buddies” or belong to a “little army of militia men”. Secondly, no, i don’t own a handgun. If i didn’t drink alchohol, but believed that i had the right to according to the 21st amendment, would you take me seriously? It’s too easy to say “you don’t own a handgun, so all your arguments about the benefits of handgun ownership are invalid.” It’s simply not true. I do believe that i would be safer if i owned a handgun, but I don’t own one now because I’m a college student paying for my education myself and i’m basically broke all the time. I definitely don’t have the money to spend on a decent firearm. Moving right along…
There are way too many examples to list here of determined indigenous fighters defeating a superior force. Most of our military is overseas right now, anyway. The point isn’t whether or not ordinary American’s would be able to win against our military, which is arguably the most powerful in history, the question is whether we would even have the tools to try. Never underestimate the power of free men and women fighting for their life and liberty. William Wallace, anyone?
For now, i need to sleep. Have a great day, man.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:51 am
Last night I caught someone attempting to enter my house, probably to steal my car. I shouted at him and he ran away. As scary and unnerving as that experience was, it would be even scarier if I thought he may have had a gun. When people have guns and the adrenalin is going, bad things can happen. Most criminals want to meet you less than you want to meet them. If I had a gun and had shot him out of fear, how would that action be proportional to the crime?
I have to admit that had he not ran away I probably wouldn’t have put up too much of a fight, its only a car after all, its not worth getting hurt for. However, if I had a gun I would probably have shot him.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 11:51 am
An interesting tale WilVo. But the question is about the proposed gun controls above. I’m somewhat surprised you have no opinion on those.
Actually I’m surprised in reading the comments that it would seem that even reasonable gun owners are unwilling to fully implement the second amendment despite claiming to support it as much as I do.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I guess I’m just against guns altogether. Adding guns in to last nights mix simply makes for a more dangerous situation, not a safer one. Perhaps if the intruder had a gun he would have been more bold and not ran when I challenged him.
The problem in the US is that there are so many guns in circulation, lots of criminals have access to them, therefore law abiding citizens feel the need to arm themselves also. In the UK, most criminals don’t carry guns, therefore we don’t feel the need to defend ourselves with them, much like our police force. From what I have seen, American police seem to be a lot more wary and aggressive, I suspect because of their desire not to get shot. Their aggressive and defensive attitude helps perpetuate this atmosphere of fear and tension.
Guns make the world a more dangerous place not a safer one and I really can’t see an argument for letting ordinary folk have them.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Nice, I like your ideas.
The Jefferson quote does not make grammatical sense to me. Americans are always telling me they are proud of their English, so why don’t they use it better?
Wilvo – I agree.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I’ve been in a situation similar to WilVo, but I did have a handgun. I was not afraid, and had every intention of using said handgun if the perpetrator produced one himself. Thankfully he did not. But I’ve never seen a man run so fast in all my life.
Regarding regulations: I pretty much agree that criminals and those suffering psychosis should not have access to firearms, but the criminals keep breaking all the laws and carrying them anyway, which is why in Texas we have legal carry licensing for us law-abiding types.
A lot of safety and handling training should be required, and there are more of these courses than ever. I have a lot of friends who enjoy the shooting sports, and others who are collectors. None of them would I ever have a problem being around when they handle firearms.
Disarming is no solution to crime. In this country it would insure that only criminals carried firearms. I have been personally advised by our local law enforcement officers to own/carry a handgun simply based upon average response times once a 911 call for help has been placed. Most officers make their spouses carry a handgun on their person for this same reason. I must therefore conclude that it is my responsibility to protect me and my family, not the government’s.
Brewster’s quotes are not antiquated, but unfortunately are often forgotten. They are powerful reminders of why we do not disarm our citizens. They are reminders of why we need responsible citizens armed. They are reminders of why we ever had a second amendment in the first place.
Greater accountability on the part of gunowners? Sure. Better training? Sure, bring it on. Mandatory safety training? No problem; the more the better. More ATF agents? Sure; go get those bad guys! But me and other responsible citizens owning handguns or having firearm collections is the least of this government’s problems. So far they agree with me.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I guess we got it right then all those years ago when we decided that your average guy on the street didn’t need a firearm. It’s worked very well for every country with similar laws and doubtlessly saved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives.
It’s sad to think that America has gone too far down that road to destruction, sorry, freedom, that it is simply unable to turn back.
Having said that though. I would very much like to see how many of the handguns that are sold for “protection” actually provide that protection. When most people become a victim of streetcrime it usually happens so fast that they are simply taken by surprise.
I would also like to see if crime figures in places of high gun ownership are higher or lower.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 6:06 pm
My intruder ran pretty fast too, I must have a loud voice :-) I didn’t consider for a moment that the intruder would have a gun, my situation had far less potential to end in death than it would in the US simply because guns are removed from the equation. Having a gun would make me feel less safe. Its just too easy for a robbery to turn in to a murder when guns are involved.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Disclaimers: I live in Texas. I own 2 guns (both rifles), both of which I use only occasionally at the range. They are not kept at my house, but locked away in a gun safe at my parents’ home that only one person and a safety deposit box have the combination to. The same safe holds my father’s guns, which include a variety of hanguns, rifles, shotguns, and collector pieces.
My opinion: I am all for stricter gun control. I like Simon’s 8 steps, with the exception of 1 and 7 – the first because of the legal complications involved in revisiting Constitutional amendments, and the seventh because of this country’s preference to keep the government out of the home, plus the difficulty in enforcing such a law.
I especially am intrigued by the possible ways #5 could help. Ideally, you would trace the movement of firearms from the time they left the factory into the current owner’s hands. In this day in age would it be crazy to have a weapons’ “fingerprint” on file so that any bullet used in a crime could be traced back to the gun that fired it? Maybe, I don’t know.
But I think #3, #6 and #5 are fairly middle ground and could help without infringing on people’s rights, or even most people’s perception of what is their “right”. None of these takes away an upstanding citizen’s ability to own guns.
I understand some people will say this is the start down a slippery slope to disarming the populace (and a quick look at our Western movies shows how scared we are of the government control), but I tend to not generally be concerned with our elected officials trying to enslave us. Our system is set up to question itself (ask the current Congress what they think of the Patriot Act).
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Matt, I wasn’t proposing revisiting the second emmendment, just defining it clearer because a seriously large part of what it entails has thus far been completely overlooked.
I’ll concede that step 7 is a tough one, but like I said, these are just ideas. But step 5 is entirely possible, and the crux of that step should be that guns should ONLY be able to be sold by authorized gun dealers. Should you want to sell your gun to someone else then this would, under my proposals, mean that you would have to broker the deal through an authorized gun dealer.
I think this might make people think very carefully about where they keep the weapons and how secure they are. In fact, that rather sounds like it might therefore render step 7 somewhat lame.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Thank you for all your comments. I am now looking for a gun safe with combination lock.
I am in the process of being licensed for foster care, and must have all firearms in a gun safe. What the federal government has never ever asked me to do, one of the most red tape laden bureaucracies of all time, Child Protective Services, has been able to accomplish. With four very powerful words they accomplished this – “approval pending voluntary compliance”.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Well I am glad David. And in reality it won’t hurt a bit. But that lock might just save a life. I guess we’ll never know.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 26, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I’ve never really connected with guns, never felt driven to own one or seek protection for myself and my family through gun protection. On the other hand, there is that part of me that can imagine myself acting like Clint Eastwood (see American Icon) in the midst of a gun battle, staying cool under the pressure of gunfire and taking out the “bad guys”. But I am sure that the part of me that resonates with that image is the part that has succumbed to a particular typology of masculinity that is prevalent in American culture. Don’t get me wrong, I do think that men should be bold, courageous and strong, but of course, guns are not needed to establish those qualities.
In saying all of this, I realize that I am not really addressing any of your points, particularly your gun reform proposal, but I guess the details of gun policies aren’t where I am living my life. Instead, what I wonder about is why there is such a fascination with guns in American culture. My guess is that it is related to the heritage of the American frontier: a kind of man-against-the-forces-of-nature thing, a mythology where through will and weaponry a man forges his character and establishes his own destiny. I like the idea of forging character through facing challenges, and I get the potent symbolism of guns as power, but I think overall that life is too complex to allow this weapon to embody our hopes for safety and security as well as our understanding of what power is.
In closing I leave the following lyrics from Pearl Jam:
got a gun, fact i got two
that’s ok man, cuz i love god
glorified version of a pellet gun
feels so manly, when armed
glorified version of a pellet gun (x4)
don’t think, dumb is strength
never shot at a living thing
glorified version of a pellet gun
feels so manly, when armed
glorified version of a pellet gun (x4)
always keep it loaded (x3)
kindred to be an american…
life comes…i can feel your heart…
life comes…i can feel your heart through your neck…
life comes…i can feel your heart through your neck…
like some…i can steal your heart from your neck…
glorified…glorified…
Wrote the following comment on Apr 26, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Good response Anthony.
Brewster has notably failed to respond again to my questions too. No doubt off somewhere enjoying his misguided idea that he is somehow more free than me because he has a gun.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 28, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Gun Control is not Crime Control
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
“Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school’s campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
STEP 2 : BAN ALL HAND GUNS, PERIOD.
There would be more dead students at the Appalachian School of Law…
STEP 3 : BETTER BACKGROUND CHECKS
Someone with a mental illness (as diagnosed by a judge) is not allowed to purchase weapons.
The state of Virginia did not upload this information into the national background check system, and therefore he was allowed to buy a gun.
Virginia is responsible for letting him get a gun.
How much more of a law can you make it?
“If you are judged to have a mental illness you can’t buy a gun.”
STEP 4 : BAN ALL ASSULT WEAPONS
Are you familiar with Switzerland?
There is an assault weapon in practically every home. Check the crime rate there.
STEP 5 : START A NATIONAL FIREARM REGISTER
This is the most puzzling to me. Especially being called for by a European who thinks Bush is the devil.
Do you realize that registration of guns gives the government a VERY exact method of removing weapons from the populace?
If Bush was the dictator that the world believes him to be, I would think they would want ordinary Americans to keep their arms so they could rise up against the devil!?
Look, gun registries have been used to do just that before and I don’t support them.
Check your local British military field manuals. They are taught to obtain gun registration information from governmental agencies and go confiscate the guns!
No good can come of a registry…
STEP 6 : INTRODUCE A 5 DAY WAIT PERIOD AFTER PURCHASING A GUN.
I agree wholeheartedly with this one. Make it a week!
STEP 7 : INTRODUCE GUN CABINETS STANDARDS WHERE GUNS MUST BE KEPT.
Reasonable. As long as the cabinets can be accessed quickly in case of emergency.
STEP 8 : INTRODUCE TOUGH LAWS MAKING CARRYING A GUN IN A CRIME EXTREMELY ILL ADVISED.
Agreed. 10 years for committing a crime with a gun!
“I think if the government decided to overthrow your little army of militia men, they wouldn’t have too much trouble.”
I think the Iraqi insurgents have been giving us plenty of ‘trouble’.
“I’m all for you guys having some guns. I’m very much a second amendment advocate. I whole heartily support the rights of a “well regulated militia” to “bear arms”.”
That’s not what the amendment says…
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
I ask you this, if the militia is “being necessary to the security of a free State”, why would the government be allowed to regulate it? Wouldn’t that be kindof stupid?
The National Guard is NOT the militia. Perhaps it started out that way, but it is regulated by the federal government, despite being controlled by each state…
In 1776 the militia was nothing more than farmers and civilians who owned rifles and practiced marching the day before battle…
Perhaps regulation was a term by which the militia could be assembled? When Paul Revere road shouting “The British are coming, the British are coming!”.
I’m not a historian, just throwing out some ideas.
“But you’re point is lost on me? You are surely not trying to suggest that you are somehow more free than I am are you? And if so then maybe you can explain exactly how you are more free, and please don’t equate freedom to purchasing power.”
I think you actually hit it on the head Simon.
The British people gave up their power the minute they agreed to be disarmed…
Wrote the following comment on Apr 28, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Michael,
Some interesting points there Michael. I’ll address the most screamingly obvious one first and the key fact you overlooked.
My proposed ban would have resulted in zero more people being shot and killed at the Appalachian School of Law shooting. The two people who ran to their vehicles and retrieved their own firearms would still have had them under my proposed ban on firearms because those two individuals were law enforcement officers, and as such they would no be subject to the gun.
Addressing the better background checks, I’m a little confused, are you disagreeing with me? You think the background checks are okay? Clearly they failed in West Virginia, so my proposal for better background checks stands.
I can’t comment on your claim that nearly every household in Switzerland has an assault weapon in it because I have neither heard this before not seen evidence of this. So on that I have nothing more to add aside from the logical reasoning that people don’t need them.
Step 5. We’ll have to agree to disagree with the gun register. I see no particular harm in it. But I will say that I have never ever written or said that President Bush is the devil and it weakens every word you write when you try to force words into my mouth. Such a tactic is surely beneath you, and as good gentlemen I think we can both steer clear of such trivial diversions.
The second amendment does mention regulation. I didn’t say that this had to be done by the government, I merely stated that this regulation needs to be debated, defined, and if necessary put in place in order to fully comply. The world has moved on considerably to when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment and I see no problem with simply clarifying the part about a well regulated militia in todays society. Of course those who fear free and open debate may have a problem with this. But free and open debate is a cornerstone of freedom which brings me on nicely to my final bit of this comment.
I think it’s sad that people equate freedom to their ability to buy stuff. But if that is the measure of freedom for you Michael then I still feel that we’re as free as each other. And if it’s not then I simply ask again, how are we any less free in real terms than you? We’re not, it’s as simple as that.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 29, 2007 at 3:27 am
“My proposed ban would have resulted in zero more people being shot and killed at the Appalachian School of Law shooting.”
Guns are illegal in the UK, but people still die by them in the UK.
This is a point that we disagree on the most.
Criminals DON’T obey the law. That’s what makes them criminals…
Better background checks simply means that states need to follow the rules. If Virginia would have uploaded the information to the federal background checking system, none of this would have happened.
More laws are useless if they are not applied.
Swiss gun control: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
“I think it’s sad that people equate freedom to their ability to buy stuff. But if that is the measure of freedom for you Michael then I still feel that we’re as free as each other. And if it’s not then I simply ask again, how are we any less free in real terms than you? We’re not, it’s as simple as that.”
Buying stuff does not equal freedom, the ability to resist tyranny does.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 29, 2007 at 3:36 am
Come now Michael, don’t embaress yourself, I think America is way ahead of us in the gun killing department, and on this I am quite sure we as a country are quite happy to allow you to lead the way.
As for you being more free than me, you have yet to prove that you are, and to be frank my friend, I’d give up trying. You’re not, and you’ll never be able to prove otherwise.
I’m as free as you, and like you, despite the fact that I am free to own a firearm should I wish to, I’ve not felt the need to because there is no need.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I’m puzzled to what Michael’s point is in relation to Switzerland. The Swiss can obviously be trusted with guns, Americans can’t.
Wrote the following comment on Apr 30, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Wilvo,
The point is, the Swiss have been brought up with and around guns.
Look at early American history. EVERYONE had a gun. Yet crime was not as rampant as it is now.
Society has taken a ‘guns are bad’ stance instead of teaching responsibility with regards to guns.