Well, what can I say. You certainly know your shit about guns in a way I did not think possible about any topic. I would firstly like to ask you why guns and gun control are twin topics that grip you so firmly?
I certainly can't match your knowledge on guns or indeed the whole political scene. As I say, I'm British and gun control etc is a ZERO issue over here. There is nil percent public appetite for gun ownership and gun control is a fait accomplie as there is almost 100% gun control. There is a 5 year mandatory sentence for anyone, even on first offence, convicted of possession of an illegal firearm. Which is, essentially, any firearm. Even farmers have their balls busted by the local authorities every time they want to get a re-issue for their special gun license for a 16 bore shotgun. And they need them to shoot foxes etc.
Anyway, I digress. I want to fire back at you a few points. My argument tends towards the more rights and philosophy angle as well as the common sense and practical. I hope you can see into my viewpoint on the matter, or should I say, viewfinder? See, you can tell I'm a hopeless Limey with poor gun knowledge.
1 - Media Term:
You say Assault Weapon is a media term and you provide much evidence to show that a) they are not much different to normal guns, and b) they were modifed to stick two fingers up at the temp ban.
Ok. Let's dig at the real argument here. I think it fair to say that the gun control legislators wanted to provide some impetus and momentum to the short lived and brief public mood againt gun prolifeation. I dare say they wanted to get something down in writing, a bill, a temp ban, anything they could to try and counter some of the trends appearing in the media.
I believe the point of the movement was indeed symbolic and to gain attention and momentum. It was a political act you no doubt despise but I am sure you can see the logic. In politics, one pounces on any opportunity one can find, and why not? Especially when the tide is against you. You already mentioned guns are here and here to stay. The Constitution can't get turned over, so the odds are in your favour.
The fact is, I agree with those in favour of controls in principle and the arguments you provide which focus on what gun does what and what this means and so on are by the by. I do not think that it is right to have a system in place which allows someone to bowl into a gun shop, fill in some forms and walk out with firearms. It goes against every shred of common sense ever blessed upon the brains of mankind.
2) Assault Weapon your 'preferred' weapon of choice:
Why? Because they are easier to aim and you need less practise? Tell me why this is a weapon of choice over a handgun, if all the difference is comes down to 'features not functionality'?
My argument would be, if an assailant is after you with a gun, a) how much time do you need to aim an assault weapon? In close quarters, do you really need maximum accuracy? b) If your man has the drop on you, as he's taken the advantage of surprise and has you in his sights, you can fuckin' forget about using your "equaliser". Sorry pal, the goal has already been scored. Ball at the back of the net, Paul Robinson crying into his gloves. Game over.
And you know what? He was probably armed in the first place because a) He thought you might have one, b) He could get one easily, c)Why take a risk? Everyone is armed, the cops are armed, got to keep up with the others.
3) Control is about control: This betrays a fundamental massive lack of trust in authority doesn't it? How come my government isn't persecuting its unarmed people then? What are the odds of your elected politicians destroying you, simply because you were not allowed to stuff cabinet in your lounge full of guns? I mean, really, have you examined the liklihood of this outcome? It's a bit far fetched isn't it? And people have come at ME for Hollywood examples! Quelle Ironie.
I have plenty more to say, but I thought I'd limit it to largely THREE comeback points to get going. Don't want to use all my AMMO up in my first post. HO HO HO. Aren't I funny.
Take care Matt.
regards
John
I certainly can't match your knowledge on guns or indeed the whole political scene. As I say, I'm British and gun control etc is a ZERO issue over here. There is nil percent public appetite for gun ownership and gun control is a fait accomplie as there is almost 100% gun control. There is a 5 year mandatory sentence for anyone, even on first offence, convicted of possession of an illegal firearm. Which is, essentially, any firearm. Even farmers have their balls busted by the local authorities every time they want to get a re-issue for their special gun license for a 16 bore shotgun. And they need them to shoot foxes etc.
Anyway, I digress. I want to fire back at you a few points. My argument tends towards the more rights and philosophy angle as well as the common sense and practical. I hope you can see into my viewpoint on the matter, or should I say, viewfinder? See, you can tell I'm a hopeless Limey with poor gun knowledge.
1 - Media Term:
You say Assault Weapon is a media term and you provide much evidence to show that a) they are not much different to normal guns, and b) they were modifed to stick two fingers up at the temp ban.
Ok. Let's dig at the real argument here. I think it fair to say that the gun control legislators wanted to provide some impetus and momentum to the short lived and brief public mood againt gun prolifeation. I dare say they wanted to get something down in writing, a bill, a temp ban, anything they could to try and counter some of the trends appearing in the media.
I believe the point of the movement was indeed symbolic and to gain attention and momentum. It was a political act you no doubt despise but I am sure you can see the logic. In politics, one pounces on any opportunity one can find, and why not? Especially when the tide is against you. You already mentioned guns are here and here to stay. The Constitution can't get turned over, so the odds are in your favour.
The fact is, I agree with those in favour of controls in principle and the arguments you provide which focus on what gun does what and what this means and so on are by the by. I do not think that it is right to have a system in place which allows someone to bowl into a gun shop, fill in some forms and walk out with firearms. It goes against every shred of common sense ever blessed upon the brains of mankind.
2) Assault Weapon your 'preferred' weapon of choice:
Why? Because they are easier to aim and you need less practise? Tell me why this is a weapon of choice over a handgun, if all the difference is comes down to 'features not functionality'?
My argument would be, if an assailant is after you with a gun, a) how much time do you need to aim an assault weapon? In close quarters, do you really need maximum accuracy? b) If your man has the drop on you, as he's taken the advantage of surprise and has you in his sights, you can fuckin' forget about using your "equaliser". Sorry pal, the goal has already been scored. Ball at the back of the net, Paul Robinson crying into his gloves. Game over.
And you know what? He was probably armed in the first place because a) He thought you might have one, b) He could get one easily, c)Why take a risk? Everyone is armed, the cops are armed, got to keep up with the others.
3) Control is about control: This betrays a fundamental massive lack of trust in authority doesn't it? How come my government isn't persecuting its unarmed people then? What are the odds of your elected politicians destroying you, simply because you were not allowed to stuff cabinet in your lounge full of guns? I mean, really, have you examined the liklihood of this outcome? It's a bit far fetched isn't it? And people have come at ME for Hollywood examples! Quelle Ironie.
I have plenty more to say, but I thought I'd limit it to largely THREE comeback points to get going. Don't want to use all my AMMO up in my first post. HO HO HO. Aren't I funny.
Take care Matt.
regards
John
1 comment:
"Control is about control: This betrays a fundamental massive lack of trust in authority doesn't it?"
This betrays a fundamental massive trust in people doesn't it?
The same people that you don't trust with a gun get a vote and get elected to power.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Post a Comment