Another Gun Control Thread

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, I saw an article on A Current Affair tonight (it's probably still up here if you visit it quickly, head to http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/ and quick on 'Obama's New Pledge') about gun nuts in Texas buying up like crazy, partly because of Barack Obama's anti-gun attitudes.

Now, I know that this thread is apt to get flame-grilled, so let me tell you to attack the points, not me. Nemo me impune lacessit, savvy?

One person interviewed said that they would sooner give up their mothers than their guns, and I don't think he was being facetious.

Now, I've heard all of the pro-gun points, about the right to bear arms, protection against criminals and tyranny, etc, so let me counter these points.

1. How many people who own a gun have actually used it to defend themselves from a criminal? I highly doubt it.

2. For all the guff the NRA spout about responsible gun ownership (and I do believe that some people practise it), a gun could turn a domestic dispute into something more deadly. Yes, knives and other common household items could be used as lethal weapons, but a gun is singularly lethal, is a longer range weapon than any household item that could be used as a weapon, and requires only a single shot to eliminate a life.

3. If the ownership of a gun is meant to guard against tyranny, were Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy tyrants? Would an armed citizen's militia be able to overcome the US Army? After all, I would imagine that any escalation in armed conflict would end in the destruction of the militia.

4. Stricter gun laws would not be able to stop criminals and terrorists from getting a hold of them, but it would make it harder for them to procure through legitimate associates or means. In other words, they would have less guns, because they would have to pay more to get it through other, less legitimate channels.

5. Why do they sell assault rifles and anti-tank rifles in a gunshop? IMO, it should be restricted to a bare minimum of handgun, shotgun and hunting rifle. No machine pistols, no assault rifles, and unless you are a hunter or security personnel, no rifles or magnum handguns.

6. Does anyone realise that a gun is a tool of singular purpose, that is, to kill? Even knives have other uses, and tasers and pepper sprays are much less lethal.

I think that many Americans, particularly gun lovers, are obsessed with rights before responsibility and consequences.

I wonder whether some of the attachment to guns in the USA is because for a lot of men having a gun is part of "being a man".

Guns represent/embody male power, virility, etc etc, for many men. So any law which wants to restrict gun-ownership or access is like threatening to cut their **** off. Especially as, according to studies, their "other gun" may not be working as well as they'd like it to.
.

I was hoping to sidestep the whole guns/Freud issue.

The trouble is that even if it is if only partly true, ( that some/many american men associate guns with virility ), the issue of gun control will not/can never be simply a case of weighing up real dangers, real usefulness.

It is clear to most non-USA citizens that pro-gun arguments are pretty irrational, and without substance, and that the connection in many American men's minds between masculine identity and gun ownership is the main motivation.

I wonder what it would take to loosen that link, so that guns were no longer perceived by so many men as precious parts of the male paraphernalia.

The UK got over that degree of identification between weapons and virility a long time ago, whereas whites in the USA were still using firearms to "protect themselves" until relatively recently. It could be that it will gradually wear off.

Or is the very "nature" of a firearm, as opposed to a sword, so "similar" to the biological male apparatus that it will be much more difficult to detach the two than it was in countries like the UK, where firearms only "came in" after most of the cultural "settling" had been achieved.

I don't think that anyone could argue against vastly increased gun-control from a rational point of view though.
.

i live in the usa and i think we should leave the laws as it is, all the bad guns are already banned here (like semi autos) i own a .357 revolver and i think what we need to remember here is guns dont kill people, stupid gun owners kill people.

but you don't have to be a gun owner to use a gun.

Merle

ahh yes, i see your point. responsibility is a virtue outta style these days! but i guess its a necessary evil to have. much like armies and nuclear weapons. maybe what you need is better laws, but not to take away gun rights.

so let the stupid people keep their stupid guns.

why so serious?

because my daddy shot my mum.

oh well im sorry to hear that. but a few bad apples shouldnt really dictate nasty legislation to take away freedoms, i can tell you one thing. if someone broke into my house and i didnt have gun rights what am i gonna do? throw the nice arrangement of tulips that is convienantly next to my side at all times at him? please nothing sais im more serious than you have a gun, to protect yourself. if you have a taser or pepper spray that isnt going to get your point across, "hey man dont touch my jewlery! i have a can of pepper spray!" the dude will laugh at you, shoot you (because more than likely he has a gun) kill you and then rob you! you need a gun, to answer a gun.

Last edited by richardbenson on 25 Nov 2008, 9:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

not really...i just don't understand the appeal of something that's designed for destruction.

some people like guns, from a collector standpoint. (they dont even shoot them) some like to hunt, others like them for protection. and sadley some like them as there perferred weapon in murders

my daddy shot himself, that is how he died, richardbenson. I am not saying he couldn't have died by any other means, it was there, and he reached for it. (and we had to clean it up)

Merle

oh jesus merle that is awful! im sorry, and i now know why you hate guns so much. i guess if someone close to me died by the means of a gun i would have the same opinions about such weaponery.

I don't 'hate guns' richardbenson. how silly to hate an inantimate object! I am just saying a gun is a weapon of instant consequences, it's only purpose is to intimidate or eliminate. At least you can cut open an apple with a knife. A gun doesn't even make a good door stop, but perhaps a paper weight.

Merle