Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 3, 2012
Death / Politics Deadly Weapons
Posted by Goldy on Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM
I didn't take my driver's test until January 2, 1980, more than eight months past my 16th birthday. Not having a car, I didn't much see the point, plus, I figured a drivers license would merely be an invitation to my parents to have me cart my younger sister around. But mostly, I was just terrified of the other drivers.
As a young driver I would fantasize about those early scenes in Charlton Heston's 1971 classic sci-fi flick, The Omega Man, in which Heston drives blissfully through the deserted streets of post-plague Los Angeles. If only driving was always like that, I'd think to myself, but no, my roads and highways were constantly filled with stupid-fucking rude/angry/drunk/incompetent assholes.
Driving is easy. Avoiding the other drivers is not. And while my generally cautious and defensive driving style helped me through the next 32 years without a single traffic accident, I've had plenty of close calls, both as a driver, a passenger, a cyclist, and a pedestrian.
And that is why I oppose permissive gun laws.
Many, many of the drivers on our roads are a goddamn hazard, and yet presumably all of them were trained, tested, and licensed to drive. So why the fuck would I want these same people walking around armed—concealed or open carry—with absolutely no training requirement at all? Our roads and highways are dangerous and anxiety provoking enough; I don't want to have to worry about whether the idiot next to me on the sidewalk, or in the Starbucks, or at a bar, a beach, or a park is fucking armed. And I sure as hell don't want to have to arm myself in defense against the idiotic actions of some gun-toting asshole.
Study after study shows that there is a strong statistical correlation between gun availability and injury or death by firearms. Gun related accidents, suicides, and homicides all increase with gun availability. Anecdotes aside, in aggregate, guns don't make us safer. They just don't.
I know a lot of you think it's your Constitutional right to walk around armed to the teeth, wholly unencumbered by government regulation, despite the fact that given its caveat filled language, that hardly seems the original intent of the 2nd Amendment's framers. But 2nd Amendment or no, I don't want it! You are endangering me and my family, as well as yourselves, and nothing short of a bullet (or, I suppose, a recklessly driven car) will stop me from using whatever platform I have to advocate for a more sensible and civilized approach toward gun regulation.
So those of you who are simply outraged that I would dare use a gun-related tragedy to question the wisdom of our gun culture, well, you can all shove your sanctimonious bullshit back up your ass.
1
I see nothing wrong with every citizen being entitled to hand carry a black powder musket that takes a trained person 3 minutes to reload.
Or a Chinese autoload magazine-fed crossbow with explosive tip quarrels.
Just as our founding fathers intended.
Except slaves and women and men who aren't One Percenters of course ...
... What? That is what they intended ...
Or a Chinese autoload magazine-fed crossbow with explosive tip quarrels.
Just as our founding fathers intended.
Except slaves and women and men who aren't One Percenters of course ...
... What? That is what they intended ...
4
Many of your points are entirely salient. But the fact remains that from a logistical standpoint you could never remove even a fraction of the guns from America. There are far more firearms than people, and many of them are owned by people who would literally fight to the death to keep them. Guns have been a part of American identity, history, and culture for as long as there has been an America.
Additionally, the amount of power that would be needed to enforce real gun control laws would make the existing anti-terror campaigns and dept. of Homeland Security look like Pleasantville. The only way you're going to get your way Goldy is through about 5 generations of slow, cultural change that places less emphasis on gun violence. You can't and won't get there through legislation.
As safe as you think you'd feel if guns were illegal, literally anyone could still buy one on the street and shoot you. The government would be about as successful at getting rid of guns as they have been at getting rid of Marijuana.
Additionally, the amount of power that would be needed to enforce real gun control laws would make the existing anti-terror campaigns and dept. of Homeland Security look like Pleasantville. The only way you're going to get your way Goldy is through about 5 generations of slow, cultural change that places less emphasis on gun violence. You can't and won't get there through legislation.
As safe as you think you'd feel if guns were illegal, literally anyone could still buy one on the street and shoot you. The government would be about as successful at getting rid of guns as they have been at getting rid of Marijuana.
5
Kris nailed it. It will be societal changes that will make the difference. If gun ownership alone were the problem, countries like Switzerland would have just as much violence as we have.
6
Great! Move somewhere else then, because guns are here to stay. (Oh, I know, you just like to whine for the sake of hearing yourself whine.)
And quit linking to completely discredited studies, too.
And quit linking to completely discredited studies, too.
7
Every several months I newsGoogle "accidentally discharged"
Guns are hazardous even when handled by the best trained.
Police: Man accidentally shot son
Weapon Accidentally Discharged in Hunter Ed Class
LAPD officer accidentally shoots himself in foot
Shot To Head Critically Injures Toddler
Police: Wallkill man accidentally shot through neighbor's wall
Two arrested after gun "accidentally" fires and injures a third person
Pistol-packing police officer misfires into pack of bologna at ...
Man accidentally shoots himself in the leg while using toilet
Gun in Luggage Accidentally Fired
New Details Released in Accidental Shooting Death of Lebanon, MO ...
The Pulaski County, MO Sheriff says no adults were home when three teenaged cousins were playing with a loaded gun that accidentally discharged, killing one
Guns are hazardous even when handled by the best trained.
Police: Man accidentally shot son
Weapon Accidentally Discharged in Hunter Ed Class
LAPD officer accidentally shoots himself in foot
Shot To Head Critically Injures Toddler
Police: Wallkill man accidentally shot through neighbor's wall
Two arrested after gun "accidentally" fires and injures a third person
Pistol-packing police officer misfires into pack of bologna at ...
Man accidentally shoots himself in the leg while using toilet
Gun in Luggage Accidentally Fired
New Details Released in Accidental Shooting Death of Lebanon, MO ...
The Pulaski County, MO Sheriff says no adults were home when three teenaged cousins were playing with a loaded gun that accidentally discharged, killing one
8
Interesting that you felt that way about cars. Would you say that level of cautiousness is characteristic of you, Goldy?
10
@6:
Um, did you even bother to click through? I link to an index page at the Harvard School of Public Health listing 24 studies on the relationship between gun availability and death. Yet you just brush them all off as "completely discredited," because I guess you know better than the folks at Harvard.
Yeah, way to back up your assertion.
And quit linking to completely discredited studies, too
Um, did you even bother to click through? I link to an index page at the Harvard School of Public Health listing 24 studies on the relationship between gun availability and death. Yet you just brush them all off as "completely discredited," because I guess you know better than the folks at Harvard.
Yeah, way to back up your assertion.
11
Goldy - Given that there are nearly orders of magnitude more accidents and deaths from motor vehicles, do you then support more/ stricter motor vehicle controls/laws? (The ones we have seem do not seem to function better than our firearms legislation if the goal is safety). As you almost but not entirely pointed out - motor vehicle drivers are much greater risk to you and your much vaunted family than guns.
Your lead in seemed to be equating something to... something... but you kinda lost me. Other than lending flavor your own pissy-sarcastic rhetorical peccadillo's.
And secondly, what sorts of controls (for firearms) are you speaking about exactly? Repeal of the Second Amendment? What? Howz about some details.
@6 Clearly I'm asking too much BUT if you're going to claim something somebody is citing to support an argument is "discredited" it behooves you to then cite something that actually discredits it.
Your lead in seemed to be equating something to... something... but you kinda lost me. Other than lending flavor your own pissy-sarcastic rhetorical peccadillo's.
And secondly, what sorts of controls (for firearms) are you speaking about exactly? Repeal of the Second Amendment? What? Howz about some details.
@6 Clearly I'm asking too much BUT if you're going to claim something somebody is citing to support an argument is "discredited" it behooves you to then cite something that actually discredits it.
12
As a gun owner I am strongly in favor of strict gun control. I cannot believe how easy it is to purchase a rifle, ammunition, etc. It should be hard. A background check should take more than 10 minutes. If I really want that gun, I can come back in a couple days and pick it up. Why should a handgun owner be issued a concealed carry permit just because they ask? If you need 'protection' that badly, you can carry it on your hip like a grown up. Why shouldn't a firearm be registered to me like a car?
As a gun owner I am strongly in favor of strict gun control. I cannot believe how easy it is to purchase a rifle, ammunition, etc. It should be hard. A background check should take more than 10 minutes. If I really want that gun, I can come back in a couple days and pick it up. Why should a handgun owner be issued a concealed carry permit just because they ask? If you need 'protection' that badly, you can carry it on your hip like a grown up. Why shouldn't a firearm be registered to me like a car?
13
@6 - yeah. What #10 (Goldy) said. You're not helping your cause that much by appealing to an invisible authority.
14
Goldy, remember that correlation alone doesn't imply causation. Better to look at local crime rates over time. If a city with a violent crime problem loosens local gun regulations and the rate of crime goes up over the next few years, or if a tightening of regulations directly precedes a drop in violent crime, then you've got correlation AND control, which is sufficient to infer causality. Have any studies been run on this? I'm curious.
@3: Calling a statement "the truth" doesn't make it true. Got any evidence?
@3: Calling a statement "the truth" doesn't make it true. Got any evidence?
15
Since 10,000+ gun-caused deaths per year apparently isn't enough to establish a correlation between easy access to guns and gun violence for True Second Amendment Believers, I say: keep whatever armory makes you feel safe IN YOUR OWN HOME. When you bring that shit out into any public place (let alone a bar, workplace, roads, or other place people routinely get angry enough to kill someone) it becomes the problem of every other person in that space--especially if the conceal-carrier is one of those knuckleheads who sees self as the hero who solves every mugging or robbery with a few perfectly-placed shots that never cause return fire and never hit any bystanders. Sorry, but humans demonstrate every day that they are too stupid to allow every last psycho, rageaholic, addict, and criminal of them to carry deadly-force-at-a-large-distance wherever they go.
16
@11: Cars are designed for getting from one place to another. Guns are designed for killing and maiming people. See the difference? Anyway, you have to be licensed to drive a car.
17
I also postponed getting my license (until I was 26), but for exactly the opposite reason - I didn't trust myself behind the wheel of car. They're such huge, heavy, dangerous hunks of metal, and it terrified me that even a short slip of my attention could result in such a catastrophic outcome. I did eventually get my license, but still can't understand how people can trust themselves enough to drive something large like a SUV, which has even greater potential for harm to others.
18
law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem.
until they go crazy, get dumped or divorced, feel threatened, or have their manhood insulted, and stop abiding the laws.
but then they're not law-abiding gun owners anymore. so law-abiding gun owners are still not the problem.
see how that works? rinse and repeat.
"it's WAY too late for gun control in america" - steve earle
until they go crazy, get dumped or divorced, feel threatened, or have their manhood insulted, and stop abiding the laws.
but then they're not law-abiding gun owners anymore. so law-abiding gun owners are still not the problem.
see how that works? rinse and repeat.
"it's WAY too late for gun control in america" - steve earle
19
Goldy, here are two things you can do to lower your risk of statistical correlation:
1. Don't own a gun.
2. Be polite.
For the record, the number of homicides in a municipality is strongly statistically correlated with the number of churches.
1. Don't own a gun.
2. Be polite.
For the record, the number of homicides in a municipality is strongly statistically correlated with the number of churches.
20
"Anyway, you have to be licensed to drive a car. "
Probably because owning a car isn't a Constitutional right.
There are a loooooot of people afraid of their own shadows in this thread.
Probably because owning a car isn't a Constitutional right.
There are a loooooot of people afraid of their own shadows in this thread.
21
@1, it must logically follow that the First Amendment only applies to hand operated printing presses, not the internet, word processing or computers as the founders never envisioned that type communication.
@Goldy, There is no caveat filled language of the 2nd Amendment. Reasonable regulation is fine, just as it is for the First Amendment. But to deny that the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended individuals to have the right to bear arms is to ignore the plain language of the amendment. Even the liberal 9th Circuit Court has found that the right to bear arms is a FUNDAMENTAL right. You may not like what it says, but it still says it. Confirmation bias is clouding your critical thinking skills.
@Goldy, There is no caveat filled language of the 2nd Amendment. Reasonable regulation is fine, just as it is for the First Amendment. But to deny that the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended individuals to have the right to bear arms is to ignore the plain language of the amendment. Even the liberal 9th Circuit Court has found that the right to bear arms is a FUNDAMENTAL right. You may not like what it says, but it still says it. Confirmation bias is clouding your critical thinking skills.
22
"So those of you who are simply outraged that I would dare use a gun-related tragedy to question the wisdom of our gun culture, well, you can all shove your sanctimonious bullshit back up your ass."
You call it sanctimonious bullshit. We call it reason.
You call it sanctimonious bullshit. We call it reason.
23
About 20 years ago I got to see a driving class in Germany. Cars were speeding down a lane where two narrow curves were set up with traffic cones. At the last second the light went on telling you to either go left or right, which you had to do without clipping any cones. I thought it was a race school, but my friend let me know that it was just regular old driver's ed. The drivers were being trained how their car would feel and react under extreme pressure like when you're avoiding an accident.
Drivers licenses here should be an order of magnitude more difficult to obtain than they are now. Serious training including accident avoidance should be mandatory. The tests should cover the real world of driving and not whether the legal blood alcohol level is .08 or .06 since that means absolutely nothing to anyone but a cop with a breathalyzer.
Washington drivers are absolutely clueless as to what the actual rules of the road are, as you can clearly tell if the subject of traffic islands, crosswalks, or car pool lanes ever comes up.
We give out licenses to people who can barely drive and let the real world sort them out. Unfortunately we pay the cost on the roads instead of at the DMV.
Drivers licenses here should be an order of magnitude more difficult to obtain than they are now. Serious training including accident avoidance should be mandatory. The tests should cover the real world of driving and not whether the legal blood alcohol level is .08 or .06 since that means absolutely nothing to anyone but a cop with a breathalyzer.
Washington drivers are absolutely clueless as to what the actual rules of the road are, as you can clearly tell if the subject of traffic islands, crosswalks, or car pool lanes ever comes up.
We give out licenses to people who can barely drive and let the real world sort them out. Unfortunately we pay the cost on the roads instead of at the DMV.
24
@ 4 - Quite correct and well-stated. One should look at guns in the same way one looks at casual sex: yes, it's out there, yes, it can be dangerous, and no, you're not going to stamp it out with laws.
Reject the nanny state.
Reject the nanny state.
25
This is so precious. Your extreme cautiousness toward everything in life would be cute if you weren't so damn sanctimonious about it.
Off-topic, but it strikes me that you must be one hell of a helicopter parent.
Off-topic, but it strikes me that you must be one hell of a helicopter parent.
27
@16 so you want to argue the INTENT of an object, now? That's a dumb paper-thin argument. It will not convince anybody who isn't already converted.
BTW - you need a licence to own a handgun in many states. Certainly they don't administer the same kind of operational/safety test to qualify for gun ownership that they do for driving a car— though I agree that they ABSOLUTELY should. That STILL leaves motor vehicle fatalities as THE leading cause for death for Americans under 30 even with safety and licensing procedures.
Cars cause more fatalities than guns. Period. This is inarguable. Starting with this fact then you can't simultaneously claim a valid utilitarian "safety" argument against one (you don't like) just because the other is designed to make your life more convient. Especially if you're going to base that reasoning purely on intent of the device.
One can use a car to kill if one chooses and most guns never ever cause death or injury. The sheer percentage of cars involved in injury and death is probably way higher (though I don't have any stats for that handy) as opposed to the percentage of guns that result in injury death. So what are people really afraid of?
The same thing people who buy guns are afraid of: Boogymen that largely do not exist. A tiny fraction of the 50+ million people who own guns belong to extremist organizations like the NRA (less than 5 million members - most are old "legacy"members). A tiny fraction of gun owners are gun-nuts. A tiny fraction actually commit crimes.
Crime is trending down. Violent crime way down. Gun crime is is likewise down. So therefore there are very few compelling reasons for people to be packing around handguns and even fewer reason for people to have such hysterical fears of being shot. It's emotional hysteria driving both sides of the argument. Not actual concern for safety.
So. We have this right that you can choose not to exercise. Fine. But I'd rather have a freedom you view as ridiculous, and even dangerous, than not have it. If we can eliminate this emotional hysteria from the issue maybe, then maybe, we can pass sensible legislation to regulate firearms.
More...
BTW - you need a licence to own a handgun in many states. Certainly they don't administer the same kind of operational/safety test to qualify for gun ownership that they do for driving a car— though I agree that they ABSOLUTELY should. That STILL leaves motor vehicle fatalities as THE leading cause for death for Americans under 30 even with safety and licensing procedures.
Cars cause more fatalities than guns. Period. This is inarguable. Starting with this fact then you can't simultaneously claim a valid utilitarian "safety" argument against one (you don't like) just because the other is designed to make your life more convient. Especially if you're going to base that reasoning purely on intent of the device.
One can use a car to kill if one chooses and most guns never ever cause death or injury. The sheer percentage of cars involved in injury and death is probably way higher (though I don't have any stats for that handy) as opposed to the percentage of guns that result in injury death. So what are people really afraid of?
The same thing people who buy guns are afraid of: Boogymen that largely do not exist. A tiny fraction of the 50+ million people who own guns belong to extremist organizations like the NRA (less than 5 million members - most are old "legacy"members). A tiny fraction of gun owners are gun-nuts. A tiny fraction actually commit crimes.
Crime is trending down. Violent crime way down. Gun crime is is likewise down. So therefore there are very few compelling reasons for people to be packing around handguns and even fewer reason for people to have such hysterical fears of being shot. It's emotional hysteria driving both sides of the argument. Not actual concern for safety.
So. We have this right that you can choose not to exercise. Fine. But I'd rather have a freedom you view as ridiculous, and even dangerous, than not have it. If we can eliminate this emotional hysteria from the issue maybe, then maybe, we can pass sensible legislation to regulate firearms.
28
@16 wrong.
Cars are designed to kill pedestrians and cyclists efficiently.
They also happen to be neat ways to get to vacation resorts.
But that's just a side benefit.
Cars are designed to kill pedestrians and cyclists efficiently.
They also happen to be neat ways to get to vacation resorts.
But that's just a side benefit.
29
@21 you will pry my IPV6 from my cold dead First Amendment Printing Press hands, unless I reload.
30
I am personally performing a public service by not carrying my guns with me in my car. Because the way some of y'all drive, that would definitely increase gun violence.
31
I think no matter how one feels about gun control, we can all agree on one, simple fact:
Good God, you're a whiny little bitch.
You're not going to get guns out of America and you couldn't give a shit less about the victims of gun violence. You just like beating a dead horse. Wake me when the prissiness is done.
Good God, you're a whiny little bitch.
You're not going to get guns out of America and you couldn't give a shit less about the victims of gun violence. You just like beating a dead horse. Wake me when the prissiness is done.
32
The United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that requires no formal training to obtain a driver's license. None. Driver's Ed is disappearing from high schools; most Americans learn to drive from Mom or Dad or Aunt Tillie, and mostly by osmosis at that. When I took my driving test, the DoL examiner was far more interested how I parallel-parked than how I drove around the block...
35
"well, you can all shove your sanctimonious bullshit back up your ass."
Right back at you, cunt. Move to China.
Right back at you, cunt. Move to China.
37
So let me get this straight, you use the analogy of cars and bad drivers to guns and bad owners. You make the argument that you can in fact drive a car safely, despite other bad drivers. Your analogy then doesn't make any sense when you say you don't want guns to be available because you're worried some idiot with a gun could hurt someone. Are you calling for banning all cars then? Because you don't want to have to worried if someone is fucking armed with a 2000 pound projectile? Because our car culture leads to a higher availability of cars which leads to higher car accidents? With all due respect, your car analogy makes the argument for pro gun availability side more than the gun prohibition side. And let's get real, I'm more likely to be shot by a criminal than by some careless gun nut, but they are both of concern. I'm a responsible gun owner who worries about psychopaths owning guns and psychopaths driving cars. But you sound just as nutty as the pro gun NRA crowd. If you plan to ever reach out to moderate gun owners like me who support common sense licensing and regulations you need to stop with the emotional arguments. Arguments that just show you don't like guns, but have little basis in rational thought. I tend to agree with Bowling for Columbine sentiments that we have a way too violent culture and celebrate violence too much. But that's a different issue than whether or not responsible adults should be allowed to own or carry a gun. Saying guns don't make us safer is an over simplification of things. Cops with guns sure make us safer, or do you want to take away all guns from cops too? I'm fine with tragedies like PTSD vets shooting park rangers starting a discussion on why it happened and what can be done to make it harder for people like that to get guns. But you can't just use it as an excuse to hate on sane gun owners. This guy was willing to kill, he could have easily rammed his car into the park ranger at 70 mph and killed her that way too. You have to discuss other things like our culture of violence, our war machine sending soldiers to violent places, our lack of mental health treatment for vets, etc. Saying we should ban all guns in response to this incident is no more rational than saying we should ban all cars in response to the drunk driver killing the Google employee in Kirkland. We need to look at root causes, not just the instruments of violence used.
More...
38
@ 37, I think Goldy is just saying, "Look at all the irresponsible jackasses out there. I don't want them owning deadly weapons." In terms of policy crafting it's too emotive, but it's certainly a valid way to feel.
That said, the Founding Fathers were pretty damn clear that they felt gun ownership was the responsibility of every citizen and for the good of the republic. There's no shortage of quotations proving that. You can argue that that was a product of the times and that it could or even should be revisited, but not that Jefferson and the others had a very limited idea of what the 2nd Amendment meant.
That said, the Founding Fathers were pretty damn clear that they felt gun ownership was the responsibility of every citizen and for the good of the republic. There's no shortage of quotations proving that. You can argue that that was a product of the times and that it could or even should be revisited, but not that Jefferson and the others had a very limited idea of what the 2nd Amendment meant.
39
Last I checked This country wasn't in the business of banning things because you don't want/like them. Neither is it in the business of banning things because I don't want/like them.
More over the idea that gun ownership is pointless because their use for personal and home defense is ineffective is a straw man argument. There are plenty of reasons to own guns, home/personal defense just happens to be one of the foolish and invalid ones. And one most often touted by nuts, or people who are under educated about fire arms.
Effectively the argument your making here is the same those nuts are. PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET ME WITH THEIR GUNS!!!! Your response is simply to heavily restrict (or eliminate) gun ownership, while theirs is to buy as many guns as possible and carry them at all times. So long as the debate is defined by those 2 things (fear and hard-line ideology) no reasonable, practical and consistent gun regulation will ever pass in this country.
More over the idea that gun ownership is pointless because their use for personal and home defense is ineffective is a straw man argument. There are plenty of reasons to own guns, home/personal defense just happens to be one of the foolish and invalid ones. And one most often touted by nuts, or people who are under educated about fire arms.
Effectively the argument your making here is the same those nuts are. PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET ME WITH THEIR GUNS!!!! Your response is simply to heavily restrict (or eliminate) gun ownership, while theirs is to buy as many guns as possible and carry them at all times. So long as the debate is defined by those 2 things (fear and hard-line ideology) no reasonable, practical and consistent gun regulation will ever pass in this country.
40
@32 I don't think that's true. Canada (or at least parts of Canada) doesn't require any formal training either, you just need to pass the test(s).
41
Goldy,
All of your reasoning aside, your desire for a gun free society is impossible to fulfill.
Because I am armed, and the only way you can disarm me is to kill me.
You may think that crazy, but that just makes your situation a bit more challenging, doesn't it?
Unless you are willing to come disarm me yourself, please stop writing in public about how you want to make me defenseless.
Sincerely,
Armed American
All of your reasoning aside, your desire for a gun free society is impossible to fulfill.
Because I am armed, and the only way you can disarm me is to kill me.
You may think that crazy, but that just makes your situation a bit more challenging, doesn't it?
Unless you are willing to come disarm me yourself, please stop writing in public about how you want to make me defenseless.
Sincerely,
Armed American
42
"You call it sanctimonious bullshit. We call it reason. "
Then use that reason already. This country is long overdue for a revolution, grow a pair for us all.
Then use that reason already. This country is long overdue for a revolution, grow a pair for us all.
43
@41:
Or else, what? You gonna shoot me? Are you suggesting that your 2nd Amendment right trumps my 1st Amendment right to criticize the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
Unless you are willing to come disarm me yourself, please stop writing in public about how you want to make me defenseless.
Or else, what? You gonna shoot me? Are you suggesting that your 2nd Amendment right trumps my 1st Amendment right to criticize the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
44
@12 - Your reasonable position is certainly refreshing!
My lifestyle doesn't require me to own a firearm, but my dad was an occasional cop, so we had guns in the house. I know lots of hunters. I don't agree that any of it is necessary, or that the framers of the constitution intended the gun culture that grew out of the 2nd Amendment, but it's the law of the land, so all I can do is voice my displeasure that manufacturers are allowed to make whatever firearms they wish, sell them however they wish, and that some people are convinced that owning firearms somehow makes them safer, better, or more whatever than other people.
My lifestyle of the moment does require me to drive a car and I am terrified of other drivers. I am terrified of becoming distracted and hitting a bird, let alone a human being. I think drivers should be required to get Continuing Education credits and/or be retested every 10 years in order to keep a license. Sure, there would be people who drive without licenses and insurance (just like now) but the people who do follow the law would hopefully take it that much more seriously.
My lifestyle doesn't require me to own a firearm, but my dad was an occasional cop, so we had guns in the house. I know lots of hunters. I don't agree that any of it is necessary, or that the framers of the constitution intended the gun culture that grew out of the 2nd Amendment, but it's the law of the land, so all I can do is voice my displeasure that manufacturers are allowed to make whatever firearms they wish, sell them however they wish, and that some people are convinced that owning firearms somehow makes them safer, better, or more whatever than other people.
My lifestyle of the moment does require me to drive a car and I am terrified of other drivers. I am terrified of becoming distracted and hitting a bird, let alone a human being. I think drivers should be required to get Continuing Education credits and/or be retested every 10 years in order to keep a license. Sure, there would be people who drive without licenses and insurance (just like now) but the people who do follow the law would hopefully take it that much more seriously.
45
@43 In his dickish internet troll sort of way the commenter makes a good point. America's gun owners like their guns a lot. Hence, greater restrictions on firearm ownership are impractical for political reasons.
46
@43: I absolutely do not believe that the 2nd Amendment in any way trumps the 1st. They are equals and support each other in many ways.
What I am saying is that you should not advocate positions which you are not willing to back up yourself.
Want to advocate gay bashing in public? Go to it, and I'll respond the same way. Come and try physical gay bashing, and let's hope someone like me is there to stop your violence before it starts.
A gay basher in word but not in deed is a coward and a bigot; a gay basher in reality is (hopefully) bruised and bloody or worse.
I suggest that we should point out bigotry whenever we see it. We should mock it. We should laugh and point. And we should let the bigot know that, if their dreams of gay bashing (or rendering women defenseless) ever come to pass, there will be hell to pay, because we don't allow that kind of activity in this society.
What I am saying is that you should not advocate positions which you are not willing to back up yourself.
Want to advocate gay bashing in public? Go to it, and I'll respond the same way. Come and try physical gay bashing, and let's hope someone like me is there to stop your violence before it starts.
A gay basher in word but not in deed is a coward and a bigot; a gay basher in reality is (hopefully) bruised and bloody or worse.
I suggest that we should point out bigotry whenever we see it. We should mock it. We should laugh and point. And we should let the bigot know that, if their dreams of gay bashing (or rendering women defenseless) ever come to pass, there will be hell to pay, because we don't allow that kind of activity in this society.
47
@46: By your logic, nobody should call for the imprisonment of violent felons unless they're willing to go and personally round them up.
49
Wait, what?
Is this the same Goldy who vehemently opposed banning cell phone use while driving? Did you guys hire another Goldy over the holidays?
Is this the same Goldy who vehemently opposed banning cell phone use while driving? Did you guys hire another Goldy over the holidays?
50
@47: Yes, you should not call for the imprisonment of violent felons yourself unless you are willing to do it yourself.
We get here into an issue of ability vs morality. What if you believe it is moral to lock up a violent felon, but you are not physically capable of doing so?
I think the answer is to take the greatest share of the risk of your beliefs as possible.
For example, let's have everyone who supports the death penalty to be in a lottery to decide who pulls the switch. If you say you support that policy, but you are unwilling to carry it out, then you shouldn't be supporting it.
Certainly it is okay to promote policy that you cannot personally carry out. I can't help someone have an abortion. I'm not trained. But the closer we can get to me being personally responsible for decisions like that, the better.
We get here into an issue of ability vs morality. What if you believe it is moral to lock up a violent felon, but you are not physically capable of doing so?
I think the answer is to take the greatest share of the risk of your beliefs as possible.
For example, let's have everyone who supports the death penalty to be in a lottery to decide who pulls the switch. If you say you support that policy, but you are unwilling to carry it out, then you shouldn't be supporting it.
Certainly it is okay to promote policy that you cannot personally carry out. I can't help someone have an abortion. I'm not trained. But the closer we can get to me being personally responsible for decisions like that, the better.
51
@49 The difference between talking on a cell phone while driving and owning a gun is that Goldy has no desire to own a gun.
52
@50: Bullshit. You're appealing to emotion here, trying to make it an issue of feelings of guilt rather than an issue of justice.
53
I will keep my shotgun. I've kept it in my little Wallingford house for the past ~ 30 years, during which time I've have never pointed at another person (though displaying it has scared off one prowler/would be burglar) and have only fired at the range a few times. I support the right of other people to obtain such guns easily, provided they pass a background check. And it gives me pleasure knowing that this makes people like Goldy angry, and I enjoy knowing how impotent they are to do anything about it.
I say this an overall political centrist who supports certain liberal policies like abortion rights, gay rights, socialized health care, drug legalization, public transit etc.
I say this an overall political centrist who supports certain liberal policies like abortion rights, gay rights, socialized health care, drug legalization, public transit etc.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (53) RSS