Who Am I?

My photo
A nobody; a nitwit; a pilot; a motorcyclist; a raconteur; a lover...of life - who loves to laugh, who tries to not take myself (or anything) too seriously...just a normal guy who knows his place in the universe by being in touch with my spiritual side. What more is there?

19 January 2013

Reducing Gun Violence

Okay, look, I get it. “Guns” is a very emotional subject for some. Especially for those who don’t like them – who view guns as horribly repugnant or just plain “icky” or who wish not only that they’d never been invented or that we could somehow eliminate them from society.

Newsflash: We can’t. Guns are here to stay. Sorry.

The twenty-something son of a friend of mine recently posted something on his Facebook page (the family lives up in Washinton D.C. by the way). He said that nobody needs to own an “assault weapon” and anyway that it only takes one bullet to kill most things. Needless to say he was for stricter gun regulations.

This is so typical of the liberal mindset: Nobody needs this or that sort of gun; they should be banned! Nobody needs a 30-round magazine; they should be banned! Liberals must feel that these steps would necessarily “reduce gun violence.” In reality, all they do is hinder the RIGHT of law-abiding citizens to own guns, something I need not point out which is protected in a little document called the Bill of Rights. You wanna change the Second Amendment? There is a procedure for doing so. Go ahead and try. Let us all know how far you get.

I posted a rebuttal on the boy’s page. First, I asked him to define what an “assault weapon” is. Then I asked the kid what gave him the right to choose what kind of gun I should or should not own and how I should use it? I bet that the kid had never fired a weapon in his life and suggested as nicely as I could that he is extremely naïve if he thinks that it only takes “one bullet” to kill most things. I added that I would suggest that he shut the fuck up – but that I could not force him to as his right to free speech is protected under the First Amendment, something I seriously doubt he’d ever want to change or even alter. He took all this as a “personal attack.” Bam, unfriended! Boo-friggin-hoo.

I believe “the media” is misrepresenting how the majority of Americans feel about guns. I often hear them projecting their own biases and opinions into their stories and comments – as if the Connecticut school shooting has galvanized the nation to believe that “more gun laws” are necessary.

I’ve got news for you: That’s incorrect. None of my gun-owning friends (and I have lots of them) have changed their opinion on “gun-control.” We pretty much all feel that there are enough gun laws as it is, thank you very much, and we’d like to see them enforced more diligently. We also don’t feel that ANY of the proposed new gun restrictions would have prevented the Newtown shooting or will prevent a similar event from happening in the future.

We gun owners don’t look at the NRA as some big corporation that only represents gun manufacturers. We know that the NRA represents *us*, its members. When Wayne LaPierre speaks, he speaks for me and the millions like me.

Look, I realize that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. But even under the new, restrictive laws like those in New York State, Adam Lanza’s mother still would have been able to purchase her guns! And so what if the kid only had seven rounds in his magazines? He would have simply carried more of them. Or used the two pistols he was carrying.

So what’s the point? Where does the “reducing gun violence” come in?


Capt. Schmoe said...

Nobody really wants to address how to control spree type shootings like that which occurred in Newtown Ct.

I have an acquaintance from Israel. Like most from his country, he was in the IDF for two years, most of it spent on the edge of the Gaza strip.

It amazes him that one person can shoot so many people without intervention from potential victims. Either with firearms or sheer numbers, it is Moti's contention that everyone involved should counterattack at the onset of violence.

It is also his contention, that we don't do this because we have no confidence that anybody else will respond to a threat in the same fashion. Nobody wants to be the only counter to a life threatening attack as the numbers do not play out. Moti feels that we are conditioned to run away or cower in place rather that go after the threat in an instinctual fashion.

Moti's argument makes sense to me. However, I don't see a cultural shift occurring. We don't have the will to indoctrinate our youth in the need to act against physical threats or putting the good of the group over the good of the individual.

The media most certainly has a role in the propagation of spree shootings. Their incessant coverage of the event, cries to "make sure that it never happens again" and the huge amount of air time dedicated to the perpetrator provides potential shooters with motivation to carry out their twisted, evil plans.

There is crazy and there is evil. When the two combine, it leads to tragedy.

The politicians, the media and some of the masses do not wish to address the above issues. It is easier for them to go after guns or video games, either target will produce little or no reduction in the threat. Their political agenda falls in line with the easy targets as well.

Failed attacks, followed by us pissing on the perpetrator's graves is what needs to occur, not more ineffectual laws.

Thanks for the post.

Michael Morris said...

I agree with you Bob. It's interesting to note that I just wrote a paper on this subject for my English class. I wrote about some of the same things including the importance of the second amendment and bill of rights and if we no longer wanted that protection then there is a legal process to change it.

That whole one bullet thing is nonsense. Maybe you make a critical shot with one bullet that's good, but most people's stress level is going to be through the roof and will likely take more than one just to hit a person.

Restricting magazine size isn't going to solve anything. The Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines because of the assault weapon ban of 1994. They'll just use the magazines and swap out sooner that's all.