I was kind of disappointed in the comments from yesterday. Some were pretty good, but no one really spoke up and said "This is why it is GOOD that we are allowed to own guns..." I was hoping someone would do that. Could it be that staunch advocates of our right to own guns are too chicken-shit to say so? That might feed my pre-conceived notions... (or possibly none of them read this;-) ...but I think calling them chicken-shit will draw them out if they are lurking.)
So, I guess what I will take on next is apathy. There is a lot of "There are already so many guns, what are you gonna do?" Or "People will find ways to get them, so why bother trying?"
Imagine your best friend got shot tomorrow and tell me if you would still have that apathy. I didn't think so. We are the wealthiest, most advanced, most orderly, and most technologically sophisticated society in the history of the world...don't try and tell me that there is nothing we can do. The difficulty of a problem is not an excuse to ignore it.
Why has no one demanded that the gun industry make their products more traceable? We can put microchips into dogs, but we can't put microchips into new guns? Why is any effort to create a national gun database dead in the water before it starts? Why can most ammunition be bought and sold without regulation? There may already be too many guns...BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP SELLING BULLETS!!!
And this notion that "Oh, we can't regulate them," is complete bullshit. Other countries do it, we simply choose not to. The rates of gun violence in the United States compared against those in the rest of the developed world are a national embarrassment. We are stuck somewhere between Nigeria and Peru...and nowhere near any other nations that have, like, police and stuff...
Another of my favorites..."Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
OK, explain then why our murder rates are ASTRONOMICAL compared to every other country that we should be compared against (it is three times higher than Canada or Australia or England, ten times higher than Japan, off the charts versus Italy, France or the rest of Western Europe.) Are we inherently more evil than Europeans or Australians? Do we have less effective, less capable police forces? Or...maybe people with guns are WAY more likely to kill people than people without guns are.
As for people keeping guns in their homes to protect themselves: again, total bullshit. We have higher property crime rates than all of those countries, too. Widespread gun ownership does not deter petty crimes...it emboldens criminals. Oh...and 500 children will die from handgun accidents in the home this year (yes, I know that like 1,000 drown in bathtubs. If you think that is relevant, then you are an idiot. Sorry, someone had to break it to you.)
That's enough for today. I am still waiting for someone to say "This is why we SHOULD be allowed to own firearms. This is the POSITIVE effect that it has on society to offset the 5,000 murders that statistics say would NOT have happened if we didn't have the widespread ownership of guns that we do."
Monday, April 23, 2007
Guns, Part II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think you make really good and valid points. Which is why I personally cannot be the person to make that argument.
You really have some interesting points in this post. I agree with all of them. Especially the one about the microchips. Why HASN'T that happened yet? Probably because people who are against gun control have more money\power\influence than those of us who don't. Also those people are most likely not reading your blog, so don't be too disappointed if no one goes against your very valid points.
Here is another comment agreeing with you, even if it is not what you are looking for. I am definitely in the apathy group of people. I can tell you were a poli-sci major because you have clearly invested more thought into the subject than I have. I think I saw "Bowling for Columbine" and just agreed with all the arguments and am, to quote john mayer, waiting for the world to change. Also, it seems like after this tragedy at VT the media is focusing on all the wrong things which, as a comm major in college, doesn't surprise me at all. Everybody is like "well, he got the guns by going through the right procedures" and then leaves it at that to focus more on his past behavior or what his peers had to say about him. It just enables everyone to continue focusing on what happened and not how to change things for the future.
i think the tracing/micro chip thins is a great idea.
I chose not to "speak up" because I thought it a waste of our time. You already mentioned your hate of firearms. I doubt I have any real compelling arguement to combat that (in your eyes).
But, ok, I'll bite. Exactly how many stories do you wish to hear about how a firearm has been used for good? How about all the times I've either used or witnessed a firearm being used for good. I'll bore you with a few:
1. Attempted car-jacking in Atlanta. I just got in my car and a guy walks up and attempts to enter my vehicle after attempts to smash the window fail. He quickly changed his mind and fled when I introduced him to Smith & Wesson.
2. Attempted robbery. I just left a Taco Bell and pass a guy in the parking lot who promptly pulls a menacing knife on me and demands my money. I'm packing (I did a lot while living in Atlanta) and produce my firearm. He promptly beats a path across the parking lot.
3. Burglary. My family returns home immediately after someone breaks in the house. The guy leaves post-haste after my Dad discovers him in the house. (Dad was armed.)
4. Home invasion. Someone breaks into the house while the family is sleeping. Again, Dad produces a firearm but the guy escapes.
5. Aggresive animals. A neighbor's dog was known to attack kids when it got loose. It had just finished attacking a neighborhood kid in my back yard. Dad shot the dog. The deputy that responded to the call was actually thankful that was one less call he'd have to answer about that dog.
Now, feel free to pick any of these apart as you see fit. I want (and apparently need) a firearm to protect myself, my loved ones and my property. The police are not obligated to fill this role. Don't believe me? If the police fail to respond to your residence in a timely manner to prevent burglary, assault or murder, try to sue them and let me know how that works out.
So I imagine I'm incapable of apathy because my best friend hasn't been shot. How about a good friend that died at the hands of a DUI. I suppose we should hate the car manufacturer or the liquor company or the distributor. Maybe we should regulate these items? Oh, we already do. Just like firearms are heavily regulated. (Just not to your liking.) Your best friend got shot. I'm truly sorry. If you must hate something, hate the individual, not the tool used to commit the crime.
How traceable does an item need to be? All firearms produced in our lifetime has a serial number. Do they require some GPS location device? Please explain how a microchip will prevent such violence? It'll identify the gun shop that distributed the gun? The first owner that purchased the gun? So we know who got what and where. That helped perevent WHAT?
What does regulating ammunition have to do with anything? Ammunition is rediculously easy to produce. If anything, it's just time consuming and your average consumer doesn't have the materials or tools to do it. (Which in and of themselves are just as "easy" to aquire. Put that on the list to regulate.)
OH, my favorite installment of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" arguement involved someone on the Internet placing a gun on a table and putting a webcam on it 24/7 to illustrate the point. Brilliant. :)
Any effort to create a national gun database is dead in the water before it starts because such a database (is thankfully) illegal by current law. If history has taught Americans anything it's that registration proceeds confiscation. Take Australia most recently or Nazi (Germany) in the past. You most likely won't buy this arguement, but since we're asking a lot of what-ifs, why not: I wonder how many Jews would have survived had the Germans not known who owned the firearms and subsequently confiscated them?
Oh, we can regulate them. To some degree. Think they'll go away? Ha! ahem, black market. So what about other countries? Gun crime in Australia and the UK are on the decline. Obviously, guns are heavily regulated or confiscated from the populus. VIOLENT CRIME is on the rise. Why? Because criminals know a law-abiding citizen has one less means to defend themselves.
I negate your arguement by suggesting that most of these murders would have still occured, but by other means. You're an intelligent being. You should know that statistics can be skewed to support just about any cause when presented accordingly.
AM, I own a firearm. Do you hate me to?
I think you have chose to bang your head against a post. Who am i to enable you?
You think you are right, have all of your "research" and try to pull a heart string here or there.
After you have spent ANY time working in the criminal justice system we can talk ....until then...rant all you want.
As I said before...you are wasting your time.
and you gotta love Aaron...even if he did take your bait.
p.s. for all we know, someone might have sent you a very persuasive piece on why people should own guns and you just didn't post it because you filter comments. Until you are transparent...don't expect us to believe you only get "love & agree" comments.
I will never relinquish my right to bear arms. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Post a Comment