One Nation Under Guns?
I admit that I’m a bit of a gun enthusiast. I watch action films. I play first-person-shooter games. I find the thought of visiting a firing range appealing. Yet even I am left in a state of revulsion when I hear that over 12,000 people were killed by firearms in the USA last year and even more are expected to get bitten by the bullet in 2014. In fact, the first mass shooting of the year occurred last Sunday in Maryland. So much for New Years and New Beginnings.
Despite being a fan of gun culture, I am certainly not a fan of massacres, and would like to think that even the most die-hard defenders of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms are in agreement with me. Yet any attempts to regulate firearms and thus diminish the number of gun related deaths in America are consistently beaten down in Congress, as pro-gun politicians and lobbyists successfully argued that such regulations won’t work.
Why not legislate smaller magazine sizes so that less people get killed before a criminal has to reload? Many Congressmen and NRA officials argue that such legislation is a waste of time because criminals won’t adhere to them. I suppose by that logic Americans may as well decriminalise murder, rape and theft. What about at least reinstating an assault weapons ban so that military-grade weapons can’t be put into the hands of the common psychopath? President of the NRA, David Keene, claims that the initial Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 “made no difference” to the levels of gun-related deaths in the USA and that therefore any modified version of the ban would also do little to reduce their drastically high rates of mass slaughter. Well you know what they say: If at first you don’t succeed, fuck it.
Obviously one can’t expect to find a single, perfect solution to a problem as big as gun-related violence in America. Naturally these ideas have their flaws, but wouldn’t even flawed attempts at gun control be better than the current situation now where even the clinically-diagnosed mentally-disturbed citizens of the USA can buy any type of firearm without a background check? The situation is more disturbing than the individuals themselves!
As I’ve said before: I am a gun enthusiast. However, I don’t feel as though gun culture and gun control are diametrically opposing ideas. Many enthusiasts across the USA are responsible gun owners that don’t and likely won’t harm themselves or others. The issue at hand is how to come up with laws that limit eligibility to buy firearms and the level of carnage that those firearms can cause, so that massacres like Maryland never happen again.
Comments (16)
Casey, you don’t seem to make many real points or conclusions with this. Is this a challenging or interesting article, or is it just a few self indulgent, wishy washy paragraphs about what you think? Not sure this needed to be published. I am, however, for gun control.
Seriously? What does it matter if the number of people killed by firearms is 12,000 or 8000? those people are still gone. They were still killed by Firearms. Had those weapons have been illegal to own chances are maybe it may not have made a difference but in an ideal world had it worked there could be at least a large percentage of that 8000 still alive today. A gun isn’t the only way to kill someone; of course it isn’t but its also not the only way you can protect yourself. relying on the idea that, should someone come at you with a gun, pulling yours faster and firing first doesn’t make you a peace keeper or someone defending himself or his family. It makes you no better than the person aiming at you. All these people who own guns have you thought about what it would be like to ‘defend’ yourself putting a bullet in someone and watching them die? Sure you could go with the “but they were gonna kill me” argument but at then end of the day. You shot someone. you’re gonna live with that. Your children will ask you about your gun ask you whether you’ve ever shot someone with it. Will you tell them? Will you tell them about the person you killed or will you just say. “I only have it in case one day i need to protect myself” Will you lie to your children bend the truth to hide your guilt? Just get rid of the god damn thing. Sure you may never have to use it but should the day arise when you do will you have the stones to take the shot or will you become one of that years 8,000 ?
I will tell my children that I shot someone and I will explain that there was very good reason to. I will explain that reason to my children and encourage them to do the same if the situation arises. I will live with it happily ever after. I will enjoy watching the death of the person who intended to kill me and my family. There will be absolutely no guilt whatsoever and I will sleep soundly.
The only legal way to legislate is through a constitutional amendment. Any other form of legislation is illegal.
Illegal legislation is the best kind, man. Go democracy!!
Another guy who blasts mental health issues but refuses to define them..
MENTAL HEALTH IS THE AVENUE TO GUN CONFISCATION..
Media and politicians push gun control in a dangerous and Dishonest manner..
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/who-is-mentally-ill/
American Psychiatric Asso: Half of Americans are mentally ill….
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/american-psychiatric-association-half-of-americans-mentally-ill/
where would this guy begin his confiscation – anxiety, depression, parents of children with ADHD……..the list would be endless
300,000,000 prescriptions for psychiatric drugs written in 2009 alone..
the sheep could disarm themselves if they dont wake up
Casey,
Have you even shot a real gun?
“I admit that I’m a bit of a gun enthusiast. I watch action films. I play first-person-shooter games.”
So you’re an expert by means of fictional media.
“even more are expected to get bitten by the bullet in 2014.”
More fictional expertise.
Like Payton Manning, you blew it on the first snap.
The author of this article seems to be severely misinformed about several things.
First, there was most certainly not “over 12,000 people killed by guns last year.” The data pertaining to homicides in 2013 will not be fully compiled and published until later this year, but the most recent year available in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report database shows that in 2012 there were 12,765 homicides TOTAL in the us. Of those, firearms were the weapon used in 8,855.
Although we don’t yet have firm national data for 2013, reports from large urban areas (where most homicides occur) indicate that the amount of murders _decreased_ substantially from 2012. Some examples:
“Following a year when Chicago led the nation in homicides with more than 500, the city’s Police Department said Wednesday that in 2013 the city recorded the fewest killings since 1965 and saw its overall crime rate fall to level not seen since 1972.” -Yahoo News
“Homicides, violent crime down in Detroit in 2013, police chief says… The total represents a nearly 14% decline in homicides from 2012” -Detroit Free Press
“In 2013, 155 people were murdered in Orleans Parish, a 20 percent drop from 193 the year before, following a national trend seen in a number of major U.S. cities, according to news reports.” -the New Orleans Times-Picayune
“New York City Murder Rate In 2013 Falls To Levels Not Seen Since 1950s… The number of homicides in New York City has dropped nearly 27 percent in 2013, putting the city on pace to set a record low. Newsday reports that, if the current average holds till the end of the year, New York’s murder rate could dip back to levels not seen since the 1950s.” -Huffington post
As for why gun owners oppose magazine limits? As people that own and use guns we know that a reload takes a trivial amount of time (a couple seconds at most) and would not likely affect the outcome of spree killings, which are usually protracted events with ample opportunities for the perpetrator to reload as he moves between groups of victims. Studies have found the average amount of shots fired per homicide is only three and almost all criminals already use small, cheap, low-capacity handguns that would not be affected by any capacity ban. 6,371 of the 8,855 firearms homicides were with pistols and revolvers- only 322 were with rifles, and that includes not only high-capacity “assault weapons” but more common hunting guns as well.
Add to this the fact that 3D printing is already causing a revolution in manufacturing where anyone can print any small, simple item they want using a desktop factory that costs less than a good rifle. Anyone who wants any type of magazine could simply download one of the many freely-available CAD plans create a working 30-round magazine in a few hours while the printer does all the work. This, simply put, means limiting magazine capacity is not only ineffective but now literally impossible. We also no longer believe that gun control advocates will stop at 10 rounds as the two states that are held up as models of “sensible” gun control- California and NY- last year decided that even 10 rounds was too many. New York passed a limit of seven rounds in a closed midnight session that actually broke chamber review laws in its rush to be passed while CA’s legislature passed a ban on detachable magazines ENTIRELY. That latter restriction would have turned almost every single gun into an illegal assault weapon overnight, and the only thing that stopped it from becoming law was a veto from the governor when he realized how impossible and onerous it would be to enforce. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy here- its how we’ve lost a great deal of rights, gun-related and otherwise, over the past several decades.
As for why we oppose so-called “assault weapon” bans? Well, that’s primarily because what makes one gun an assault weapon and another functionally-identical gun not is literally just appearance and ergonomics. No “assault weapon” is automatic, actual machine guns have been _very_ tightly regulated since 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed. An AR-15 is semiautomatic which means it fires only one shot when you pull the trigger- just like a handgun or many popular hunting guns (10/22s, Mini-14s, Remington 7400s, Browning Auto-5s, etc.) Not only would banning guns based on appearance accomplish literally nothing, but it would open the door for FAR more restrictive legislation. When AR-15s are banned what about this hunting rifle that fires the same round at the same rate of fire? Why did we ban the AR-15 as a “military firearm” despite the fact that no military uses AR-15s, while allowing ACTUAL military weapons like M1 Garands and M1 Carbines an exception to the ban? The potential to slowly expand a ban based on arbitrary features like pistol grips to cover “normal” guns is a very real threat- one that has happened in several states so far despite the fact that the guns being banned are all rifles which as states above are only used in about 2.5% of all homicides. Again, the tactic is very clearly the slippery slope based on ignorance and media-driven moral panic.
And as for background checks- well, as many people have pointed out they wouldn’t actually have stopped any of the recent highly-publicized spree killings. Maryland mall shooter and Navy yard shooter? Both passed background checks and both bought hunting shotguns. Sandy Hook? The guns were stolen from the shooter’s mother, who bought them with a background check. Aurora? Background check. VT? Background check. Columbine? One of the shooter’s relatives bought and transferred the guns to Harris and Klebold (committing several felonies in the process) after undergoing a background check.
If you really want to do something about the amount of homicides committed with firearms in the US looking at crime data one thing is very clear- instead of being obsessed with scary-looking rifles that are actually rarely used in crime, we need to divert resources the existing but poorly-enforced straw-purchase laws and go after people who illegally divert handguns to criminals.
So the millions upon millions of lawful gun owners have to accept their Civil Rights being restricted because of the actions of criminals ? What is fair about that ? Why are the criminals not the focus in this debate ? Aren’t they the ones committing these crimes ?
Because violence and death (lack thereof) is more important than hurting the big-dick of lawful gun owners’ pride.
If you look at the recent mass killing not a single one of these people would have been stopped by a background check. None, of them were identified as dangerous and adjudicated as such by a court. So, “doing something” that makes more people get killed is not my idea of progress.
“attempts to regulate firearms and thus diminish the number of gun related deaths in America are consistently beaten down in Congress, as pro-gun politicians and lobbyists successfully argued that such regulations won’t work.” – and the reason for this is that “gun control” laws make criminal violence increase and more innocent people are killed. We need to start by removing the “criminal protection and kill zones” created by the Brady laws. After removal of the No Gun Zones, then we need to make gun training easier for everyone (gun owners and non-gun owners). That is the only way that will reduce criminal violence, namely criminals need to know that victims will protect themselves as necessary.
Well, this article is completely senseless. Watching video games and wanting to go to a shooting range makes you a member of the ‘gun culture’? What diatribe! Sorry, but actually need to own a gun, know how to use it and actually adhere to safety guidelines.
Have any of you guys watched this!? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ZjbmTCP9E
I remember when we were one nation under ‘Huns’ !! Different times. Take care, Obsidan Thunderstorm PHD