Steved1998
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Can someone here who is pro-guns explain to me in what kind of fucking situation would an ordinary citizen need an assault rifle?
To take down an assailant in a movie shooting perhaps?
Can someone here who is pro-guns explain to me in what kind of fucking situation would an ordinary citizen need an assault rifle?
Interesting question. Are we going to see metal detectors now at the movies? I wouldn't be opposed to it.
It's way too easy for psychos to get a hold of weapons and guns made for warfare.
There's more of a background check for getting your drivers license. Why are gun fanatics opposed to this? ( background checks, passing a safety test) What's the problem?
Or putting controls on how many bullets or what type of bullets you can buy. What is the big freaking deal? This makes me so mad.
I grew up with guns around the house. Firearms were an integral part of everyday life, as commonplace as bicycles and silverware. I always expected to hand my guns down to my children, a generational rite of passage among the men in my family. But I can no longer ignore the obvious: The conditions that once allowed owning a gun to become a rite of passage for American men have changed.
My dad was a champion marksman and gun collector, and I was a 6 year-old boy version of Saoirse Ronan's reindeer-hunting Finnish girl in last year's movie Hanna. By the time I entered fourth grade, I knew how to field strip, clean, and reassemble several types of revolvers, semi-automatic pistols and rifles. I knew wadcutters from hollow points. I knew how to ease my breath and relax my trigger pull for a better shot. One of my earliest memories is of the gun range. I was five, maybe six, as my dad drove our family there in our potato-brown Volkswagen Rabbit. It was very early in the morning and bitter cold inside. When my dad handed me his revolver, I turned to face him and he exploded at me. Never point a gun at anyone! Always point the gun at the target! That instruction would eventually evolve into never pointing a gun at anyone whom I didn't intend to kill.
As a kid, I associated guns with safety, the right to live in your own home without being afraid. It was ingrained in me early that outsiders were not to be trusted. We had a fallout shelter beneath the house, a Blair Witch hideout rank with musty smells and walls lined with canned food and mason jars. My dad jerry-rigged a wood panel with a holster so he could hide one of his revolvers under the bed ruffle by his dangling hand, loaded with five bullets so the firing pin rested on an empty chamber. (If the gun was dropped, this meant the pin wouldn't accidentally fire a bullet. Gun safety, you see.)
I became an adult who felt uncomfortable in a domicile that didn't have a weapon in it. I imagined the horror stories from the NRA's magazine, The American Rifleman--stories culled from the pages of newspapers of home intruders, usually, foiled with the help of a firearm--and wished for a gun of my own. When I finally got one, at 20, I was able to sleep soundly. When I heard creaks or strange noises in the Chicago house that I rented with a handful of roommates, I wasn't afraid. I felt empowered and in control.
At first, I found it difficult to reconcile all of that with this country's increasing numbers of violent murders. There was the Virginia Tech shooter. And the woman who was denied tenure and blasted several of her colleagues at the University of Alabama. The Columbine killers, of course. The D.C. sniper. The Fort Hood killer. The term "going postal," a reference to a rash of postmen and office workers who shot up their workplaces in the '80s and '90s. Never mind the drive-bys, the accidental homicides, the random schoolchildren hit by stray gunfire. The statistics began to speak for themselves: Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. As PBS's Bill Moyers points out in an excellent commentary, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined.
Several years ago, my then-girlfriend and I were mugged on the street by an assailant with a gun one block away from a local police station and two blocks away from my home. Despite having only $10 to give him, he graciously opted not to shoot us with the black 9mm he was brandishing in our faces. He was never caught. Conceal-and-carry proponents would have you believe that a secreted snubnose would have changed that outcome. That blithe action-movie attitude ignores the fact that I'd have spent the rest of my life haunted by the memory of the stranger I'd killed over $10.
But the sad fact is that American society can no longer handle the responsibility of private gun ownership. We've lost whatever internal gyroscopes enabled us to monitor ourselves and our conduct. We need stronger legal controls on gun ownership, including not only background checks but mental fitness exams and mandatory training. There should be at least as much required to own a gun as there is to obtain a driver's license. Instead, even people on the government's terrorist watch list are legally able to purchase firearms.
There are obvious reasons that firearms in the hands of civilians make less and less sense: denser populations; higher powered weaponry; ever-looser regulation that prevents weapons from being effectively tracked from owner to owner, better enabling sales to criminals. But just as important is the dissolution of the social mores that once corralled the behavior of civilian gun-owners: the knowledge of one's neighbors; a sense of participation in a community; respect for others, even if their political views didn't align with your own. Even my dad, of the fallout shelter and the loaded pistol under the bed ruffle, would've viewed someone who owned a semi-automatic assault rifle as dangerously antisocial. You don't shoot paper targets or hunt with an AK-47 or AR-15 with a drum magazine. There's simply no appropriate place for that kind of firepower in civilian society and no justifiable reason for owning such a device.
We're living in the time of conceal-and-carry permits, of "stand your ground" laws that put the onus on the dead, not the shooters, to justify their intentions. The NRA has called for guns to be allowed in bars, in churches, in schools. Such proposals would create a paranoid, jumpy free-for-all far deadlier than anything in the Wild West.
We see gun violence--Columbine, gang shootings, this Holmes guy in a movie theatre--and we buy the rhetoric that we need to defend ourselves--with more guns, of course. We stock up on ammo, get the conceal-and-carry permit, and we complete the process of fulfilling our fears (not our hopes). In other words, we become part of the problem. And now we're standing, guns drawn at ourselves, poised in a standoff that is all too American.
I can never tell if you're trolling or not, but I definitely agree with your second post there.
Incidentally when I saw TDKR Tuesday night, the shootings did pop into my head. Luckily the movie was so engrossing I forgot about it after 10 minutes.
That really is al we can do.
As well as better mental health.
I am beginning to think that the only way to understand these big shooting sprees/mass killings is as a mental health issue.
But, you know, "SOCIALISM" and all that.
I think we will all agree that it would be much more productive if this could be the focus of the debates.
His family and friends are just as responsible as he is for not getting him help, unless he played this very close to his vest.
Reading state constitutions from the 13 states and arguments from the time it is pretty clear they are referring to an individual right.
Heard a story on NPR about gun control in Japan. In order to own a gun (and your only options are a handgun or shotgun), you go through a rigorous background check, a mandatory mental health assessment at a hospital, and then a full day training course. You are also required to inform the police where in your house you store your weapon, and how much ammo you have (and I believe you're limited to 50 rounds max). Licenses are renewed annually, and you must undergo the full background and mental health check every 3 years.
I'd be perfectly okay with the States adopting that model. Particularly the mental health check.
Heard a story on NPR about gun control in Japan. In order to own a gun (and your only options are a handgun or shotgun), you go through a rigorous background check, a mandatory mental health assessment at a hospital, and then a full day training course. You are also required to inform the police where in your house you store your weapon, and how much ammo you have (and I believe you're limited to 50 rounds max). Licenses are renewed annually, and you must undergo the full background and mental health check every 3 years.
I'd be perfectly okay with the States adopting that model. Particularly the mental health check.
Metal detectors at movies? Are you kidding? How about they strip search us too. Did 9/11 turn everyone in this country into a bunch of pussies?
I agree with a rigorous background check and a mandatory mental
health assessment and a training course. It should be a process that
takes several weeks or more.
I don't think he explicitly approved RPGs.
LemonMelon said:I don't think he explicitly approved RPGs.
Dfit00 said:Venezuela recently passed a law prohibiting the ownership and commercial sale of guns to civilians due to constant pervasive armed crime.
Venezuela bans civilians from private gun ownership � Hot Air
I guess if the United States were in a similar position with increased crime rates, a law like this would be looked as a solution and not as the typical thing that the government interferes with the rights of the people.
HBK-79 said:I know I'm really reaching here. But I find it disturbing how "mental health issues" are often placed on the back burner in tragedies like this.
Dfit00 said:Venezuela recently passed a law prohibiting the ownership and commercial sale of guns to civilians due to constant pervasive armed crime.
Venezuela bans civilians from private gun ownership � Hot Air
I guess if the United States were in a similar position with increased crime rates, a law like this would be looked as a solution and not as the typical thing that the government interferes with the rights of the people.
BVS said:Well that, and hell freezing over...
However, shouldn't there be some focus on Holmes in order to make an attempt to study and understand what's going on in these killers' minds?
The kid was never in trouble in his life aside from a speeding ticket. What are they going to do? Require mandatory screenings every year for every person in the country?
Yes, absolutely. But that focus and study should absolutely NOT happen in the media.
No, how about just mandatory screenings every year for those that choose to own a firearm.
Well that, and hell freezing over...