Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Ambivalience (16 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm NOT ambivalent on guns. I want them (13+ / 0-)

    regulated.  

    I grew up with a daddy, and brothers that hunted and brought game to be cooked at the table.  As a child I knew what it was like to hold the rabbit's legs while my daddy skinned and gutted the rabbit.  It stunk to high heaven. One reason that as a child I refused to eat the rabbit or squirrel fried, barbecued, or in a pie.  I just couldn't imagine eating those animals.  I don't begrudge those whose taste if food differs from mine.

    Times are different.  My daddy and brothers had rifles for hunting game that was brought to the table to eat for a meal.  They did not have weapons that could annihilate and entire first grade class room of kids.

    Today, some gun owners want to have guns designed for one purpose; to kill other human beings quickly and efficiently as possible.  It matters not whether they intend to use them as weapons of mass destruction or not.  They can be used for this purpose and as such, should be taken off the market and made illegal.

    This is unacceptable in a civil society.  

    •  We can do better (5+ / 0-)

      It's not the responsible gun owners I object to. It's the irresponsible ones.

      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never has and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

      by JDWolverton on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 06:38:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly, and since we cannot know who will be (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JDWolverton, kmfmstar, Oh Mary Oh

        irresponsible (and hurt someone or leave a firearm where someone might get their hands on it and hurt themselves/others) we have to have the same rules for everyone. Sure some will still do stupid things and hurt themselves/others, but reasonable regulations will save some lives (I doubt that even if we passed very strong regulations we would cut the carnage in half, but half is better than what we have now).

        I am ambivalent about the oxymoron of "gun accidents" happening to responsible gun owners.  An accident would be having the bullets explode or something like that (this is why all industrialized countries require that guns and ammo be stored separately), but shooting oneself/someone else cleaning or handling a gun is negligence.  Having a gun go off in a purse/pocket (why wasn't the freaking safety on?) is negligence. When a father and a police chief allow an 8 year old boy to shoot an Uzi that recoils and shoots/kills the boy it is not an accident, it is negligence.

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 08:36:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can tell pretty quickly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JDWolverton

          Have you spent much time around gun owners?

          If so, listen for why they own what they own them.  I spoke with a man while waiting at a rifle range for a lane to become available and he managed to punch the this is a worse than mild crazy case.  I spoke with another man that was convinced that society would fall apart.  I tried to steer things back to more reasonable risk management scenarios, gave up and went about my day.  I have also spoken with people who did not think quiet clearly and I wouldn't want them to own firearms.  

          Observe their gun handleing skills.  I have a friend that needed a few clue-by-fourings to understand the importance of the 4 rules.  Now that he understands, its safe to go to a rifle range with him.  Did they take a safety class?  These are not 100% predictors but are close enough.  

          Otherwise you are looking at trying to achieve absolute safety which does not exist.  Its the same fallacy that we can be 100% safe that got us the excesses on the so-called war to terror.  

          Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

          by DavidMS on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 11:03:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  A 3 yr old child (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JDWolverton, Oh Mary Oh

      was killed in my small town in November.  He "shot himself in the head" at 3 a.m.  Locals say daddy is a drug dealer.  Cops allowed him to turn himself in, altho it took until January 24 for him to do so.  Then he was "released on his own recognizance".  

      A three yr old.  Picking up a semiautomatic handgun and "shooting himself in the head".  A single gunshot to the head is how he died.  THINK ABOUT THIS.  Am I the only person who believes this story is complete and utter bullshit???

      People commit murder; but I guess since they do it despite the law, we should just let make it legal.  Thats what this no-holds-barred-let-anyone-buy-a-killing-machine-with-unlimited-rounds sounds like to me.  You said it, sixty.  There is no place for this in a civil society.  Period.

      Please sign and share.
      www.signon.org/sign/sarasota-sheriffs-office

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site