Every once in a while, I feel the need to reply to a comment with a separate post, to give the issue maximum exposure. This is one of those occasions: reader “Matt” has taken me to task about my position on gun control.
Gun control does not control the wrong sort of people. Currently the availablitly of guns if anything serves to contribute to crime. The fact that guns are available in our society leads to gun deaths.
The availability of personally owned vehicles leads to car deaths–30,000 traffic fatalities per year, on average. Of the few thousand gun deaths every year, half are suicides, most of the other half are intentional homicides, and only very few are outright accidents, whereas the vast majority of traffic fatalities are. How come you’re not asking for a ban on vehicles? People can take public transportation, and it would save tens of thousands of lives per year.
Semi-automatic and automatic weapons serve no purpose in our current society, Constitution or not. So at least these should be banned.
You can pray that little mantra all you want, but those weapons do serve legitimate purposes all over the country every day: defense of self and home, target shooting, plinking, hunting, or just being looked at in the safe. Between the people on my blogroll alone, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of legally owned weapons serving a purpose to their owners every day without any crime involved, so your statement is flat out wrong. What you mean to say is that you don’t agree with the purpose, which is a different statement altogether, and a totally subjective one at that. Who the hell are you to claim the right to determine what’s a “legitimate” use, and what isn’t? Unless I use them to infringe on your rights, what I do with my weapons is none of your business, and I’ll be the one determning legitimacy.
Maybe have a military buy-back system. These guns could also be placed locally in secure buildings where they would be available in the event that our country was invaded or our government strong-armed by people with whom the vast majority disagree with and used to overthrow them.
First of all, you can’t “buy back” what you’ve never owned to begin with. The government cannot buy back guns, because it never owned them., and the term itself implies that the government is the “rightful” owner of all arms. Then there’s the breathtaking logic splice in your argument: we should keep the weapons in (presumably) public (i.e. government-regulated) buildings, so we can check them out if we need them to defend from government tyranny?
Irregardless of what is done with them, there should be a ban on these weapons. As to non-automatic handguns, my feeling is that they also should be banned, or put in public armories for use in a situation where militias are needed.
“Irregardless” is not a word. Also, your “feeling” is not only irrelevant here, it’s also a bad basis for a law. Emotions are not good foundations for public policy. My feeling is that you’re alarmingly naive, and that you shouldn’t get a vote at all when it comes to gun control, but you’d never find me campaigning for a law to make it so. You, on the other hand, support taking my gun away from me on the basis of your feelings, which is pretty damn discourteous, seeing how you know nothing of me and my situation.
You pointed out a good argument in that many criminals don’t need guns to commit crimes, but guns do make it much easier to commit a crime, and also to commit larger scale crimes.
They also make it easier for people to defend themselves. Hell, they’re the only thing that makes it possible for some people to defend themselves. How’s someone with a prosthetic leg or someone in a wheelchair supposed to run or fight back against even an unarmed attacker? Banning guns makes it a little harder for criminals to do their job (but just a little, because anyone who wants a gun will get one illegally), but it also makes it a lot harder–or downright impossible–for many non-criminals to defend themselves.
You could say criminals could use knives, but ask most people, and I am pretty sure they will say it would be much easier from a mental standpoint to shoot someone than stab someone, I think it’s a matter of stabbing being a liitle too violently intimate for most people.
You may want to check the links to the news articles from gun-free Japan I linked earlier, and then get back to me about stabbing being “too violently intimate” for most people. Are you honestly telling me that anyone who would shoot a person will just abstain from killing if they only have access to a knife instead? What kind of fantasy world do you inhabit?
You point to violent criminals body-building and being able to commit further violent crimes without the need of a gun. The answer to this is stiffer jail sentences and better rehabilitaion services.
Ah, yes, that’s always the touchy-feely magic answer for violent crime reduction: rehabilitation. How the hell do you “rehabilitate” someone who rapes and tortures someone just for the hell of it for 20+ hours, to the point where his victim begs him to kill her? How do you rehabilitate someone who, upon learning of his guilty verdict, turns around and goes back to sleep in his cell?
OK, rehabilitation services will not rehabilitate all offenders, but stiffer sentences would serve to deter crime, or at least to keep criminals off the street for longer periods of time. I know, guns don’t kill people, people kill people; but guns make it a hell of a lot easier.
The point is that guns also make it one hell of a lot easier for the good people to protect themselves against the bad ones, and that the presence of guns in the hands of the good people is a much better deterrent to offenders than any amount of harebrained scheme you can think up.
Our Constitution has been amended over time to fix those issues which served to hold our socity back, and in my opinion this is another one of those issues.
Well, you propose disarming me and all my friends and family, and leaving us helpless against the poor little misunderstood criminals who just aren’t afforded enough quality rehabiliation services. I’ll give your opinion the consideration it deserves.