I'm not a big fan of guns. Yes, I realize the "right to bear arms" is protected by the 2nd Amendment, but really, that part was placed in the US Constitution because it was a totally different time and place than where we are at today.
As we do after every mass shooting, many people in the country are thinking about our rather liberal gun laws and how these laws may have impacted the latest tragedy. As a reaction to the shooting in Tucson, one brave representative has made -- what I would consider -- a very modest proposal: banning high-capacity clips.
Right on cue, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is going ballistic (sorry, bad pun) over ANY proposal to regulate guns and ammo.
The other so-called argument for the need of citizens to be armed as heavily as possible is in case some crazed individual or group decides that the time has come violently to overthrow the government. That rationale borders on pure stupidity.
Do people truly believe that a bunch of citizens with firearms purchased from Walmart are going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the US Armed Forces? Do they think they can take out the ATF, FBI or Homeland Security? Do they really think they can out gun the state police and the National Guard?
Sure, a group of folks might charge some public building in a local community and raise their flag over the top of it, but that will be about the extent of it. In short order, they will be surrounded, gunned down and/or carted off to prison. End of story.
So, if all these guns that flood our nation don't actually reduce crime AND they truthfully won't be used to overthrow the government, what other rationale is there? People don't need semi-automatic handguns and 30 shot magazines to hunt Bambi!
As we do after every mass shooting, many people in the country are thinking about our rather liberal gun laws and how these laws may have impacted the latest tragedy. As a reaction to the shooting in Tucson, one brave representative has made -- what I would consider -- a very modest proposal: banning high-capacity clips.
Right on cue, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is going ballistic (sorry, bad pun) over ANY proposal to regulate guns and ammo.
The association took a pre-emptive strike at legislation which would ban the future sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines like the one allegedly used by Jared Lee Loughner. That bill will be proposed next week by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who told TPM that the legislation is gaining momentum. The Senate version will be introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who said this week that America's problem is not that there are more madmen, but that guns are too readily available to them.I'm sorry, but citizens do not need all the firepower they can get their hands on. Our armed society has NOT led to less murders, injuries and violent crime. In fact, it has led to the precise opposite! We have more murders each year in the US than any other western nation -- by a lot.
But the NRA argues that such high-capacity clips are "standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans..."
The other so-called argument for the need of citizens to be armed as heavily as possible is in case some crazed individual or group decides that the time has come violently to overthrow the government. That rationale borders on pure stupidity.
Do people truly believe that a bunch of citizens with firearms purchased from Walmart are going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the US Armed Forces? Do they think they can take out the ATF, FBI or Homeland Security? Do they really think they can out gun the state police and the National Guard?
Sure, a group of folks might charge some public building in a local community and raise their flag over the top of it, but that will be about the extent of it. In short order, they will be surrounded, gunned down and/or carted off to prison. End of story.
So, if all these guns that flood our nation don't actually reduce crime AND they truthfully won't be used to overthrow the government, what other rationale is there? People don't need semi-automatic handguns and 30 shot magazines to hunt Bambi!
eh, if there was really an uprising, with the sheer number of guns in this country? We could put up a fight.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, limiting the number of bullets you can have is a slippery slope. I mean, one bullet in the wrong hands is too many; meanwhile, 30 bullets in responsible hands is not a problem. So where do you draw the line?
And the stats on whether widespread gun ownership stops crime is muddled and can go either way. It probably depends not so much on ownership but on carry-and-conceal laws. Doesn't help much when you're being robbed to know you have a gun at home in the drawer.
"...in case some crazed individual or group decides that the time has come violently to overthrow the government. "
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I have a feeling it's the enthusiastic gun owners who instigate this violent overthrow.
We used to own some guns, several hunting rifles and a .22 pistol that I actually used to kill an opossum that was killing my chickens.
I got very nervous when the guns were stolen. I don't miss them now (although one of the shotguns was a very beautiful thing).
My father in his later fearful years slept with a loaded Saturday night special on his nightstand "for protection." I worried more that he might turn it on himself.
Once when we were contemplating a move (For a job) to Canada, one of the co-workers asked the Canadian company representative about importing his guns.
The Canadian was shocked. "What is it with you Americans and your guns," he said.
Just some random thoughts.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteSo you think a horde of people with shotguns and semi-automatic handguns would be an even match with a drone? You might want to check with the fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan on that.
Well, one flamethrower in responsible hands wouldn't be a problem, but we outlaw those for private citizens anyway. Besides, with the right stimuli, today's responsible person might not be so tomorrow.
I don't think the stats are muddled at all. The US has far more violent crime than any other industrialized society.
Baroness,
I agree with the statement by the Canadian!
I'm thinking that the reason why the US has a higher violent crime rate than any other industrialized society, has less to do with the abundance of firearms, and more to do with the larger population size. After all we are the 3rd most polluted country in the world, with over 300 million people, versus Canada's 30 Million. Smaller population, less crime. Bigger pollution, more crime.
ReplyDeleteAlso there are major variations in violent crime rates from state to state and city to city, with bigger population densities tending to have more violent crime than smaller ones. And there tends to be a connection between high rates of unemployment, poverty and substance abuse, and that of violent crime...poverty tends to lead to an increase in substance abuse(and illegal drug trafficking), which is a major contributer to violent crimes.
Another thing to look at are countries where guns have already been made illegal. The country with the highest murder rate in the world "Columbia" has banned firearms in the hands of private citizens, and so has Mexico (another country with an extremely high violent crime rate), yet doing so has done nothing to deter violent crime, or to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Whereas in Switzerland EVERYONE has guns, because it is actually required by law that they do, and yet they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.
Something to think about.
Oops, typo: "After all we are the 3rd most polluted country in the world". That should read: "populated", not "polluted". Or was that a Freudian slip?
ReplyDeleteGuerrilla wars aren't about standing toe to toe with a government army, you're postings from The Art of War should prove that. It's about outlasting them. The fact that the Taliban has held out so long actually proves that ill equipped and poorly trained fighters can stand up the a superpower, but not head on. It's a different kind of fighting, decentralized. And, who would have thought the colonials could have beat the British Empire? Mostly they did it by outlasting them, fighting dirty, and avoiding pitched battles.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you said:
Besides, with the right stimuli, today's responsible person might not be so tomorrow.
Ok, that's true, but that doesn't make preemptive bans on guns appropriate. I could snap one day and kill someone with a baseball bat, or a rock for that matter. I don't believe in preemptive laws like that. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that jazz.
As for the violent crime stats, that's true, but the reasons are not clear. I don't think it's merely because there's a lot of guns, though as things are it doesn't help. But banning weapons won't solve the problem, just change its face.
Lastly, plenty of Canadians own guns too, and I don't know why it would be shocking for someone to want to bring his possessions with him if he's moving. As an American, I actually resent that comment, and I don't even own a gun.
ok, I'm done.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
ReplyDeleteIt always amazes me that the focus of this controversy is gun ownership, but never goes to the concept of a well regulated militia. Unless that's what the NRA thinks it is.