>the rate of accidental deaths
from guns, particularly among children, just makes me cringe, and every time I read a story about
another little girl blown away by her sibling two years older, or something similar, I feel just terrible.
I don't know what that rate is. How does it compare to injuries from, say, kitchen cleaners or airbags? I don't have easy access to these kinda numbers. I do find it easy to believe however that the antigun lobby makes a big deal out of some soft numbers. Let's face it - the NRA has lost the PR war in this country. The idea that Guns are a Disease is now more or less normal.
I believe that the parents should be held accountable for the safety of any guns (or chainsaws) they own. There's a really powerful commercial now showing a curious four-year-old setting up chairs, phone books etc. to climb to the top of the closet. This kid retrieves a handgun, then begins an unlicky muzzle inspection... Lock'm up, Folks. I've got a 900lb. gunsafe. I'm responsible; Spouse is responsible, I'll probably be able to teach some sense into my kids, but they'll have friends in the house for sure. The safe is for them if noone else.
>Am I correct in assuming that your primary ideological stand is constitutional in origin?
You know, I'm not sure. On the one hand, it's...fascinating...that we have such a direct piece of text so early in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, I'm loath to equate solely thr right to own a gun with Freedom. I think the right ot a free Internet, or the right to send&receive not-for-pay TV, or the right tosend our kids to private school...are ultimately a bigger deal in a pluralistic society. But I do see sense in the idea that a gov't which restricts citizens' rights to own and operate the same guns the police uses...has lost its perspective on who really is running things. Btw, I'm not sure at all that the police is outgunned!!! They get to tote full-auto subguns and rifles. Criminals almost never do this, except on TV. Most criminals still carry old .22 or .38 revolvers, sorta the "bottom of the food chain" of fighting arms. Unless of course you just took a slug from one of'em.
>I know quite clearly that when there are guns around, arguments and despairs and depressions that
would have ended nonviolently have more of a tendency to be final and fatal. What say you about the
problems with guns? Are there ways we could regulate them and still make you happy? And why does
anyone need armor-piercing bullets and extremely powerful, military-type weapons in this society? <
We probably disagree about the extent and type of the problem. This is gonna be awfully politically incorrect, but I think looking at the numbers most gun violence happens among young minority males. Most of'em too young to legally own such weapons. Take away their guns, and they'll probanly revert to (slower and less immediately fatal) knifeplay. Survival rates will improve then. In this instance, a simple enforcement of the laws we have in place (ownership by citizens of age and with a clean crim&psych record. Stiff penalties for using or showing an illegally-owned or carried gun. These already carry big jail terms) would go far. Further restrictions on legal gun ownership won't do much for these kids who are already de facto outlaws.
What extremely powerful military-type weapons? The police have:
Full-auto high-power rifles.
Uzis and the like.
Silenced tactical weapons.
High-capacity semiauto handguns.
Compact, hi-cap shotguns.
Nobody can outgun them without a treaded vehicle!!! imho
If the police force has access to these things, the citizens of a "free country" should perhaps also get them. Just an idea.
Technical note: All centerfire rifle bullets will go through any practical body armor. Kevlar does help with typical handgun rounds. "Armor-piercing" handgun ammo is completely unavailable, unless you're in the Special Forces.
Militias. The term has been thoroughly perverted by extremist organizations promoting decidedly unconstitutional agendas. I'm disgusted. And trying to equate "militia" with the term from the Constitution - oy. That's as bad as bikers and Bloods calling themselves "clubs". If I'm gonna join a club, by gum I better get access to a Port cellar! :-)
I don't know if I'm being coherent here. I see two sides: the average CBS News listener who is being shown guns only as instruments of violence. (When's the last time a network covered a target shooting event?)
The other side is the 99+% of gun owners who never would dream of doing anything mean or panicky with a gun. And they see every bit of gun control legislation aimed squarely at THEM, the law-abiding gun store patrons. What about attacking the real problem: acts of violence, with or without guns? That's a lot harder than finding so obvious a scapegoat as a handgun. But I think it'll be a lot fairer to the voters. Slim pickins for campaign trail critters.
How to bring these together? No easy way. The least invasive, though, is to focus on deeds, not instruments. Like alcohol. Drinking's ok; drunk driving is majorly bogus. A similar attitude toward firearms will starve the media but work out for the voters. Maybe.
I probably didn't touch upon all your points here. Ask again if I missed something. |
