Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
It always ends up here doesn't it? Just like the Health issue. Always back to wanting one thing to be fixed, not knowing how to do that, but just as long as the status quo isn't disturbed. I kinda doubt you even care if anyone ever figures out that "troubling issue", just as long as you can have your Gun.
Other Nations have faced these same issues. They responded with Control, not waffling. Their experience is one of increased safety. The US continues to drag its' feet, people continue to be gunned down so regularly that most shootings don't even get discussed, even on the local level.
The solution is obvious, but until you and a large segment of Americans decide to seriously address the issue, the carnage will continue. At some point, some of the blame has to lie with those who refuse to move on the issue. Those who drag their feet because of their own selfishness.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it appears to me that there's a huge part of the American population who are simply not getting the point. Guns, regardless whether they are at fault, cause massive needless suffering. So far the 2nd Amendment advocates can not provide a good reason for why this should continue other than that someone 2 centuries ago thought it was a good idea at the time.
You seem to be under the assumption that I oppose gun restrictions for selfish reasons, so let me start by addressing that. First, I do not own, nor do I plan on owning, a gun. Second, I do not oppose gun restrictions. I do oppose a blanket ban on firearms, as I think that's overreaching and unenforceable, but I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership, requiring safety courses/training before issuing concealed carry permits, restricting certain types of firearms, a national firearm registry, etc. I'm fairly middle of the road on the gun issue; I don't believe everything should be legal and come completely without licensing or restrictions, nor do I believe that we should ban all firearms, limit people to 7 round magazines, ban guns that are "scary-looking" (ie the AR-15 and variants), etc.
My biggest concern with most recent gun legislation is that it is entirely motivated by emotion; events like Aurora and Sandy Hook are shocking and we want to ensure that never happens again. But legislating from a place of emotion tends to shove logic aside, and that's how we end up with bad legislation like the Patriot Act; broad, overreaching legislation that is passed in a moment of national rage and terror with no thought given to the far-reaching ramifications. I'm all for reasonable solutions to the problem of gun violence, but they need to be logical solutions, and that's not what's been proposed. I want statistical analysis, not emotional pleas. And the statistics don't show that recently proposed bills will be effective in any way. Jamaica has one tenth as many guns per capita as the United States and ten times our homicide rate. Finland has half as many guns per capita and less than one tenth our homicide rate. Why? Because they have very different cultures. How do you legislate that?
The guns aren't the problem; millions of people in this country own guns who never shoot anyone. Banning guns to get rid of gun violence is ridiculous (and, given how many guns already exist in our country, literally impossible to implement). Whenever I hear someone argue that we should ban guns for safety reasons, I wonder how they feel about banning alcohol; alcohol kills three times as many people a year as guns do. Are you willing to ban alcohol to promote safety? Smoking kills ten times as many people as guns; should we ban smoking? Personally, I'm in favor of letting people do what they want, including owning firearms; I don't imagine I'll get shot, but if I do, I hope I'll still be willing to say that it's a price I'm willing to pay to live in freedom.