How many drugs come from places not American?
Seriously, the entire idea of banning handguns is absurd. The cat is out of the bag so to speak, banning them now only forces law abiding citizens to not have them. There is no arguing this point, there is no other position then that. We have spent decades on the “war on drugs” and look how that’s turning out - the “war on guns” would be the exact same thing, people would still end up in ERs with GSWs.
As if that wouldn’t prevent a whole bunch of casualties?
So, carrots, knives, and pistols are basically interchangeable? I had no idea.
Makes sense that TSA checks you for carrots.
In terms of accidental shootings sure. However is crime going to rise any because criminals know that their victims no longer have a deadly way to defend themselves? Of course I live in NC, so if you venture into the rural areas most everyone has at least one rifle and one shotgun - but those would only really be considered for home defense.
You must be white. Everything in the world isn’t about Europe, you know. I was actually thinking about Asia, not Europe, when I was writing that.
I know I am going to sound like a broken record, but this is unfortunately not a subject that compresses down into quick forum post format as it is a complex subject.
The previously mentioned book is likely to be available at your local library or by inter library loan. It provides a fairly compressed and easy to understand over view of the subject.
You know when climate change deniers demand the person they are debating with explain something really complex to them to for the purpose of avoiding debate? This is what this has sort of become.
I guess when you already have a penal system turned up to eleven, you don’t really have anywhere to go when it comes to shifting the perception… in most of the developed world mostly only the heavy crims use guns, usually between themselves. Armed robberies aren’t so common because it’s a big deal to be facing that charge.
‘The People of the Gun’ Jesus Christ.
“Let’s sacrifice him to our God!”
“The U.S. didn’t have school shootings before gun control” is a load of tripe. Here’s a citation-backed list that includes dozens and dozens of American school shootings prior to 1934.
I’m curious, does BoingBoing employ any writers who own guns, or who shoot, or who are generally okay with guns? I feel like the most open-minded presentation of guns that I’ve seen here is grudgingly accepting of guns under very specific circumstances. I’m not looking for a gun cheerleader here (there are lots of places to find that kind of writing), but as far as I can recall nearly every gun-related post on this site is negative.
Please note- this is an earnest question, not an invitation for people to pick a fight with me about why guns are bad, mmmkay?
I know at least Xeni does. Thing is, guns are, by and large, quite negative objects, with a great deal of psychological and symbolic significance. Difficult to get a way from, that.
The issues was more than Metcalf suggesting regulations - he was arguing with ignorance and not being specific on what regulations he was suggesting (other than suggesting mandatory training).
First off, for a man who apparently wrote a LAW column, I am completely agape and his ignorance of the use of “well regulated”. Well regulated means it is in order, functioning properly, drilled, up to specification, has their shit together. One can see in a militia bill from the 1780s the laundry list of items each person was responsible for. They didn’t want you to show up with no shoes, a bent rifle, and unable to hit the broadside of a barn.
If his goal was to reduce irresponsible (already illegal) use of firearms, his energies would have been better spent suggesting ways to further firearm education.
I am all for safety education, I am not sure mandated classes are required for general operation. Firearm safety is “duh” simple. If you follow three basic rules you will keep you and those around you safe. http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx These rules are included with every firearm (RTFM). None of these rules are hard or complicated, one simply needs to be aware of what they are doing. Of course even trained cops (some of who aren’t really that well trained) can have a negligent discharge. Just like spacing off and getting in a car accident, it can happen to anyone.
As for the out cry leading to his firing, what did he expect? Several years ago a long time writer named Zumbo ignorantly condemned the AR-15 platform. He lost his sponsorships and job within a week from the out cry. Many gun owners feel the current laws are enough - and when government goes full retard like when New York’s SAFE act is passed (which many feel is completely unreasonable) they go on full defense mode.
“… The increasing cultishness is a dark sign.”
Should have added:
‘Because it’s not biased if I’m right, dammit!’
That’s pretty subjective. I won’t deny that guns are associated with a great deal of “psychological and symbolic significance,” but everyone sees them differently.
This is a defensive weapon.
Not too useful nowadays, though.
plus…knifecrime! OMG!!!
Oh PLEASE quit being a liar and deliberately misquoting people. YOU are the only one who said anything about conspracies. Your entire post is nothing but standard anti-gun-nut tactic 7b: refuse to actually address your opponent’s POINT and resort instread to lies, inuendo, personal smears, and distortion of the facts.
You’re the only one whose credibility is at risk. When you use nothing but ad hominem attacks on your opponent instead of actually debating the issue, you reveal you have nothing to say.
Now, as to addressing the issue, I challenge you to produce EVIDENCE that the guy you replied to is wrong. I challenge you to produce a mention of a case where a “gun control” controversy produced an increase in the rights of gun owners. But you won’t. You can’t.
You make an excellent point. When the only experience you have with guns is TV, movies, and video games - fantasies - it’s little wonder why one could walk away with a negative outlook. If you are exposed to actual gun use, the 99%+ of all guns that are used safely for fun, you will have a different perspective.
Well, the author if this article certainly revealed his personal bias by saying that Bequette wrote a “pro-reform” column. Beschizza would not have used the phrase “pro-reform” unless he believed the situation vis a vis gun ownership rights need some kind of correction.
Actually, in a way, it does. It needs the anti-gun side to man up and realize that their personal fears and hysteria are not a sound basis for law. Especially not in a matter which concerns basic elemental rights.
The Jews were making submachine guns to fight Nazis in the ghettos with nothing more than hand tools. The whole worship of Defense Distributed as a game changer is such an unbelievable red herring it astounds me people even point to it as a legitimate point. Let me say this plain: Defense Distributed was, is, and will be a big fat nothing in the calculus of gun manufacture. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Why not? They seem to be a sound enough basis for buying a gun.
