Now, you kids know that I love me some firearms. One of the first things my father said to Cake when they met was "Sonya was a better shot with a rifle when she was eight than most full grown men." Guns are a big part of most of my early childhood memories, but I've never killed anything I didn't subsequently run after, carry out of the woods, thank, clean, cook, and eat. (And I've shot a ridiculously small number of things. Maybe 3, tops. I've run over more than that.)
I won't touch a firearm while in the city or when children or pets are untethered within 400 yards. However, one of the things I miss most about Idaho is going to the firing range at the neck of the river, laying on my stomach propped up on my elbows in the dirt with the .22, taking my sweet time to line everything up, and firing. The cycle of Silence-Careful Concentration-Explosion was intensely soothing, and I'd stay there until dusk.
But you know what? Nobody needs an assault weapon. The only thing an assault weapon is good for is killing a bunch of people who are running for thier lives.
So please, if you'd like to see the ban back up and running,Click Here and sign at the bottom
Posted by Sonya at September 17, 2004 10:59 AMSo, not to be all tinfoil hat about this, but…
The other thing an assault rifle is good for is shooting back when the cops come to arrest you as a material witness and ship you off to Cuba without a trial. They're also quite useful for expressing one's displeasure if, for example, there's a terrorist attack in November and the DOJ decides it'd be a good idea to cancel the elections— which, I'll remind you, they've talked about doing.
And sort of on and on like that.
Assault rifles are mostly for killing people, I grant you. But as long as we live in a society with armed cops and armed soldiers, there's an argument to be made for maybe someday having to kill some people. It's not necessarily an argument that can be won— I'm not saying I'm entirely behind it. I don't own any guns at all. But I can see the argument, and I'm not sure it's completely wrong.
I guess my feeling is simply this: The fewer there are the better. Even under the above mentioned circumstances, I'm not sure I could justify being the kind of person who owns a weapon made for killing my fellow human beings.
I understand some people feel differently, and that's fine. Don't sign if you don't agree.
Additionally, having a weapon that's made for killing other people significantly increases the chance that someone will feel justified killing me, in my opinion.
and on like that.
Posted by: sonya at September 17, 2004 11:21 AMand anyway, if they're coming to ship me off to Cuba and I fire at them, they're going to kill me. If they postpone the elections, and I fire, they're going to kill me. On Spot. No Questions Asked.
I prefer going to Cuba or Living to see the postponed elections over being dead any day.
Posted by: sonya at September 17, 2004 11:25 AMMy problem is that banning assualt weapons wouldnt have prevented things like Columbine. The same kids could have built napalm, pipebombs, etc, all in the basement with the source of their poor upbringing. I guess it makes it harder for them, but it's still going to happen.
Indifference my kill the world, but with the gun ban, I'm totally indifferent.
Posted by: UnderwearNinja at September 17, 2004 11:53 AMPretty much everyone I've ever known who got an abortion should have known better. With one or two exceptions, my friends who have gotten abortions were doing something they knew was unsafe for them, their partner, and a possible third party to the engagement— my friends were having unprotected sex. And the result was a little thing that may or may not fit your definition of human, but which nevertheless is alive. Until someone makes the decision to kill it.
The point is, I personally consider a fetus a human being. And I think abortion is murder. And I still vote to keep abortion legal every chance I get.
Next time something comes up for a vote, I could just say, "The fewer abortions the better," because that would be true from my perspective. But I think there's a larger principle at stake. The vast majority of the abortions that I've known about personally have, in my judgment, had much less to do with the principle of a woman maintaining control of her body than they've had to do with a woman being a dumbass and taking a morally radical action as a convenient practical solution to a completely avoidable problem. But that's not really the point. You could tell me that 90% of abortions are the result of willful human stupidity; I'd still vote to keep that particular form of murder legal, because I believe that leaving that to the personal discretion of a private citizen protects a fundamental legal principle.
We have laws in place to judge how someone uses a gun. The question of whether to own one is a horse of a different color. In my opinion it's a horse of a "fundamental legal principle" color.
Additionally, having a weapon that's made for killing other people significantly increases the chance that someone will feel justified killing me, in my opinion.
Only if you have it in your hand. That's another question altogether. I choose not to carry a gun for exactly this reason. But the right to own one is another thing.
and anyway, if they're coming to ship me off to Cuba and I fire at them, they're going to kill me. If they postpone the elections, and I fire, they're going to kill me. On Spot. No Questions Asked. I prefer going to Cuba or Living to see the postponed elections over being dead any day.
Just as a point of order, many people have survived shooting back (MOVE, Philadelphia). Some of them have even avoided prison after the fact (Ruby Ridge).
I mean look— if a bigger stronger person holds a knife to your throat and says he's going to take you to his basement, what's at stake? Is it a choice between going to the basement and dying? Or is it a choice between being at this guy's mercy and dying? 'Cause once you're in the basement, it's a whole new ballgame. At what point do you say, "Okay, I'm ready to fight against a bigger stronger man with a knife and risk getting killed, rather than surrender my liberty to him."
There's a point beyond which one has surrendered so much of one's liberty that the tools of resistance are taken away, and they have surrendered their fundamental liberty of choice. The mere presence of overwhelming force doesn't necessarily make resistance futile when the thing you're resisting is the abnegation of choice because once choice.
Here in the UK the only people who are allowed to carry guns on the street are the army, and the armed police units (who are only called in as and when necessary). The only other people who have guns are criminals and crazed lunatics. When someone gets shot over here it makes front page news. 99.99% of the population here don't feel the need to arm themselves for personal protection, which means that armed robbers generally get what they want. But at least people don't get shot all the time. Personally, I don't believe any member of the public needs to carry a gun for any reason. Last week a 13 year old boy was shot (apparently by his stepfather) while out hunting in the middle of the night. This would not have happened if all guns were outlawed. Maybe I'm taking an idealistic view here, but as I say I'm from the UK where gun ownership is considered the exception, rather than the rule. So yeah, I think assault rifles should stay banned, but I also think most other firearms should be banned as well (and that goes for the UK as well). If a guy burst in to my house brandishing a gun, I'd be cowering in the corner and letting him help himself to whatever he wanted, and I don't feel any less of a man for that. Gun crime over here is still very rare, and I think this country is all the better for it. Despite all our other faults!
Posted by: Dan at September 17, 2004 07:00 PMDan,
I am pleased that your post is
1) Here
2) Articulate
You just saved me a lot of typing. Farmers and vets (the horsey-mending kind rather than ex-soldiers) also have dispensation to own and use firearms sometimes.
The question of whether to own/carry a gun is not even a decision to burden most UK citizens. I like it this way.
I can understand and accept the pro/anti arguments voiced by US citizens and I guess I can buy that the right to bear arms is part of the national psyche and should not be fucked with... but really... if the constitution had been worded differently, or if self-defence has been articulated as "defence of self and others from coyotes" or somesuch... I dunno, it's not my place to argue, this is a website presumably hosted in the US, written and predominantly read in the same territory. I am a guest, and will behave appropriately with my views tempered by this.
Question) Why does abortion have to creep into EVERY US discussion about weapons??? Surely a different fight for a different day???
My rambling) A lot of things throughout history have required that homo sapiens think a litte further than their fists for self defence, lions cannot really be reasoned with and even if you offer them a tomato they will still bite you. The whole "hey, you with the alternative culture... have some far-reaching death" thing doesn't rock my world.
I'm not going to kill anyone. If you want to shoot me then that is a decision for you to deal with... I'll be the dead guy with the clean conscience. If you live in a country where you fear the police... that's fucked up. I'd relocate if I were you. I don't LIKE the UK police and I think that they're a bunch of revenue-grabbing beaurocrats at the top and a heap of lazy-jobsworths at the bottom, with a bunch of family guys earning their living somewhere in the middle... but they don't FRIGHTEN me, they're predominantly not a sinister organisation...
I am a lazy, cowardly pacifist... and I'm comfortable with that.
I liked Sonya's original post here and feel that I can understand where she's coming from... Her responses in the comments are again something that I can support. I think that the US is lucky to have her, and if the US put a bit of effort into promoting SW as a national icon then, globally, I think that the US would be a little more popular... and more crafty.
I like the majority of Joshua's posts and am not 100% sure that he's not being provocative but I would like to live on a different continent to his expressed views on firearms if that's ok?
Americans do a lot of good things, but guns are none of them in my opinion. Horrid shooty things.
Posted by: ian at September 17, 2004 11:28 PMWhile it may seem odd, our right to own guns has very little to do with protection from coyotes. Don't get me wrong, coyotes are fearsome creatures that can only be scared off by extreme measures... like throwing rocks. So its obvious we need protection from them, but the 2nd ammendment didn't have them in mind.
It was meant to keep America armed so that we can defend not only our home, but our country. At the time the Bill or Rights was written, the militia (which bore no resemblance to the neo-nazi -expletive deleted- who parade as militia today) was an intregal part of America's fighting force. During the war of 1812, Washington DC was defended by an army primarily composed of militia. Sure, the British regulars swept them aside like disobidient school children and then burnt the White House to the ground, but it's the thought that counts.
And, while its not very likely that the British army will invade the US homeland again, the principle still remains. America was formed by hicks with guns, and hicks with guns we shall remain. Should those guns be capable of firing 100 rounds a minute? As long as they're used at a firing range I don't see why not.
That said, I do agree with Ian on two very important points. 1) Abortion can be talked about at a different time. 2) Sonya really should be promoted to the role of national icon... or, at the very least, she should be a minor celebrity who shares with the world a generally positive attitude fueled by a love of shoes.
And I'll end with a famous quote that I'll paraphrase (because I can't remember who said it or exactly how they said it, but really only remember the gist of it) "Those who are willing to give up liberty for safey deserve neither."
Posted by: tom at September 18, 2004 12:13 AMJust to clarify my own position on this matter--
I believe in gun ownership on principle purely because I fear my government. I have no personal affinity for firearms. If I lived in the UK I would be firmly on the side of all the sensible people who prefer that guns stay illegal.
But the United States is a different kind of place. The federal government here is becoming more powerful and autocratic every day, and farther removed from the general populace. I can actually imagine a time when it may be necessary to fight the government, and that kind of fighting is best done with assault rifles and pistols, using the urban guerilla tactics the IRA employed against Great Britain between 1916 and 1922 (the post-1922 bombing campaign is another issue altogether in my mind).
I have a cultural appreciation of guns, and I enjoy firing them because I enjoy hand-eye games. But every time I've ever fired one, the thing that impresses itself on me most strongly is that every gun I've ever fired, no matter how pretty or technologically clever it is, is at its heart a crude ugly machine. A bow and arrow is a weapon, in the sense that it has some elegance of motion to it. Firing a gun always feels like knocking holes in things with a pneumatic hammer. Using a pneumatic hammer on a person seems like the kind of thing someone would have to be mentally ill to actually do.
But my government is, at this very moment, hamming an entire country to dust, without any of the usual preconditions of war. And I'm left wondering what other surprising misuses they may put their pneumatic hammers to, and what might be required by way of stopping them.
I do not like guns. But I fear they may soon be necessary.
Posted by: Joshua at September 18, 2004 05:16 PMThat's scary stuff guys :o(
It makes me as an outsider and a European feel terrified, because if your government felt threatened enough by civil unrest then they have sufficient media control to engineer that into looking like... well whatever they feel, to the rest of the world.
If this was the case and was presented to, for example, the UK as an uprising of insurgents that threatened the "American Way", then I do not doubt that allies would rally as they did in the aftermath of September 2001.
The sense of unrest has been portrayed thus far by the media as a strain of the US citizenship that has become disenfranchised from the "American Way", typically a Vietnam, Korean or Gulf war veteran is implicated or someone else that has had sufficient trauma to become unhinged without losing the sympathy of the audience. Consequently the sub-section of the American population that feels the way you (Joshua) do are portrayed to us not as free-spirited and intelligent individuals but as extremists or individuals that are trying to make sense of their personal trauma, these are gently patronised by the "modern world" at best and at worst are associated with extreme organisations like white supremacy nutcases (e.g. The UK television programmes such as Loius Theroux's Weird Weekends).
From your words it is apparent that you hold dear the freedoms written into your constitution for positive reasons. This is admirable, and it is ir-relevant whether I agree with each and every aspect of your constitution, you're fundamentallly agreeing with the principles of your country and being to all intents and purpose, a good citizen.
I can admire this and have no beef with the principle, I guess we're agreed on the nature of machines designed to kill and at slight odds on the hand/eye games.
Posted by: ian at September 18, 2004 11:52 PMWEEE So much commenting going on! Horrid shooty things, I ditto that too.
Assaulting Rifles is disgusting any way you look at it though, in my opinion.