Whenever a mass shooting has occurs (which, in the US has been somewhere between once a month to once a week in 2012), the first thing pro-gun folks say is "too soon for this conversation, pray for the victims instead"-- as if they were fucking mutually exclusive things. Also, if it's happening so often, when will we EVER actually have this conversation if it's always "too soon"? When the horror has faded, and it doesn't seem so crystal clear that things need to change right now?
Those types of comments are quickly followed up with "well, if the shooter didn't have access to a gun, he would have found another way to hurt people." Really? He would have found a way to hurt that many people that quickly? Sure, I guess a bomb could suffice, but bombs take significantly more effort than walking into a joint with a gun.
Tell you what. If someone can point out to me any other country in the world with more stringent gun control laws that have these types of mass-killings occur with proportional casualties or regularity, that argument maybe holds water. But since as far as I can't tell, those figures don't exist, so that's basically just conjecture. Or, as I prefer to call it, "talking out one's ass."
And before we get into "but if everyone concealed carried, we'd all be safer!" let me just say this: a world where everyone is armed doesn't make me feel safer. A world where everyone is armed makes me feel less safe because there are a lot of unhinged people and people with anger management issues in the world, and giving them all the ability to easily kill someone (or many someones) with one finger seems like a goddamn stupid idea to me. Furthermore? If you're in a crowded place where pandemonium is ensuing, being armed is not going to fucking help you. You're not magically going to score the perfect shot to take out a threat with people running amok in terror. You're probably going to kill an innocent bystander instead, you fucking idiot. (This rant aimed specifically at a family member.)
Hunting rifles? Fine. Registered guns for home security? Fine, though I'll never have one. The statistics overwhelmingly show that a "home security" gun is far more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar. But whatever. Rapid-fire guns? WHY DO THEY NEED TO BE LEGAL? The second amendment grants the right to bear arms (particularly as part of a standing militia), not the right to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute.
UGH. So many of the pro-gun arguments I have heard recently boil down to "I want to feel like a bad-ass, hurr durr," and I just CANNOT.
ETA:
When we liberals talk about regulation, we are not talking about taking ALL guns away from ALL people. We are talking about making it more difficult for unstable people to get access to guns, and that guns should be registered just like cars are and that maybe gun owners should have regular evaluations to make sure they continue to be stable, so that we do not have incidents like this. Owning a gun is a responsibility, and that is what the 2nd amendment is about. It isn't about having an unregulated privilege. When you choose to buy a gun, you take on a responsibility to your community and to your country. That is what the 2nd amendment is saying.
One of those responsibilities is to keep your gun safely. Don't let it get in the hands of kids where they will treat it as a toy, don't let it go off "accidentally" and don't let it get "lost" and in the hands of criminals and crazies.
Another one of those responsibilities is to not shoot people in your community, certainly not children.
If you are too stupid or crazy to not live up to those responsibilities, you should not be allowed to buy a gun. See, gun regulation isn't that scary.
- Melia Newman
Those types of comments are quickly followed up with "well, if the shooter didn't have access to a gun, he would have found another way to hurt people." Really? He would have found a way to hurt that many people that quickly? Sure, I guess a bomb could suffice, but bombs take significantly more effort than walking into a joint with a gun.
Tell you what. If someone can point out to me any other country in the world with more stringent gun control laws that have these types of mass-killings occur with proportional casualties or regularity, that argument maybe holds water. But since as far as I can't tell, those figures don't exist, so that's basically just conjecture. Or, as I prefer to call it, "talking out one's ass."
And before we get into "but if everyone concealed carried, we'd all be safer!" let me just say this: a world where everyone is armed doesn't make me feel safer. A world where everyone is armed makes me feel less safe because there are a lot of unhinged people and people with anger management issues in the world, and giving them all the ability to easily kill someone (or many someones) with one finger seems like a goddamn stupid idea to me. Furthermore? If you're in a crowded place where pandemonium is ensuing, being armed is not going to fucking help you. You're not magically going to score the perfect shot to take out a threat with people running amok in terror. You're probably going to kill an innocent bystander instead, you fucking idiot. (This rant aimed specifically at a family member.)
Hunting rifles? Fine. Registered guns for home security? Fine, though I'll never have one. The statistics overwhelmingly show that a "home security" gun is far more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar. But whatever. Rapid-fire guns? WHY DO THEY NEED TO BE LEGAL? The second amendment grants the right to bear arms (particularly as part of a standing militia), not the right to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute.
UGH. So many of the pro-gun arguments I have heard recently boil down to "I want to feel like a bad-ass, hurr durr," and I just CANNOT.
ETA:
When we liberals talk about regulation, we are not talking about taking ALL guns away from ALL people. We are talking about making it more difficult for unstable people to get access to guns, and that guns should be registered just like cars are and that maybe gun owners should have regular evaluations to make sure they continue to be stable, so that we do not have incidents like this. Owning a gun is a responsibility, and that is what the 2nd amendment is about. It isn't about having an unregulated privilege. When you choose to buy a gun, you take on a responsibility to your community and to your country. That is what the 2nd amendment is saying.
One of those responsibilities is to keep your gun safely. Don't let it get in the hands of kids where they will treat it as a toy, don't let it go off "accidentally" and don't let it get "lost" and in the hands of criminals and crazies.
Another one of those responsibilities is to not shoot people in your community, certainly not children.
If you are too stupid or crazy to not live up to those responsibilities, you should not be allowed to buy a gun. See, gun regulation isn't that scary.
- Melia Newman
16 comments | Leave a comment