I thought you all may be interested because of our previous gun control conversations.
This article from the Washington Post talks about international reactions to the Virginia Tech shootings and heavy questions about America's gun problems.
Jane, I read somewhere that South Korean officials offered public condolences to the Virgina Tech families. Can you offer any more insight into the international reactions? I think the writers of the Post article just looked at other news web sites to find out what they were covering.
Jane's UPDATE: One of the best blogs about Korea, The Marmot's Hole, has an excellent post on the subject, which continues to be updated as new information becomes available. Click here to read. (He summarizes a lot of Korean news sites, which is great for those of us - like me - whose Korean skills are embarrassingly limited.) One of the things he has mentioned is that the Korean President and Foreign Minister have offered their condolences to the American people. Definitely read the post; it's quite informative. There is an incredibly long post on this topic up at another great blog about Korea, Scribblings of the Metropolitician, entitled The Politics of Pride and Shame, which I recommend, assuming that you can force yourself to wade through the entire piece.
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Late-comer offers her two cents
Oops, sorry I'm late. I think whoever I steal my home Internet connection from is still out of town for the holidays, and I've been too busy at work to respond. Now I’ve relocated to a coffee shop where wireless is easier to steal.
I think, fundamentally, we all agree on these issues. Obviously, no one wants the government to have more control over our personal lives and decisions, but none of us want to live next to the militia man who hoards rocket launchers he gets at gun shows and has a weird, nervous tic whenever you greet him from across your front lawn. How are you going to tell a guy like that to keep his dog from shitting in your yard? I think that if any of us were “into” guns (collecting, using for protection, hunting, whatever), we would have stronger and more clear-cut opinions on what the government can tell us and what is a reasonable limit. I don't know how much better my chances of surviving would be if I was mowed down with a machine gun or if I simply had a pistol unloaded into me, but then, if someone really wanted to kill/maim/rob/violate me, they could just club me over the head with a tree branch. Wherever you draw the line, if you draw a line at all, it's going to seem arbitrary to some people. Personally, I have a problem with limiting any type of previously allowed freedom. For example, although I'm a non-smoker, I have consistently voted against any type of smoking bans, but I’m thrilled when they pass without me. I hate inhaling other people's cancer and stinking like an ashtray, but it doesn't seem like a good solution to take away the legal right to smoke. (I would, however, have supported providing incentives to businesses for choosing to install better air conditioning and circulation systems or to ban smoking on their own premises. That way, it's the choice of individual businesses and not a requirement passed down from the Powers That Be.) I don't see a nationwide weapons ban happening anytime soon, and I'm not sure I would support it if it did. Actually, I think something like Florida's 10-20-Life rule makes more sense. I'm not totally familiar with this, but I believe that they add time to your normal sentence if your crime was committed with a gun, depending on how many offenses you've had. That punishes people who use guns to bad ends, but not people who simply own them for whatever reason.
Also, super-kudos to Glenn for bringing up the responsibility of a people to revolt against an oppressive government as a last resort. Citizens are responsible for keeping their government in line. Additionally, no one is ever too poor to move, even to another country. Poverty-stricken people have been immigrating (legally or illegally) to America and other countries for centuries. You may not be able to enjoy the level of comfort you’ve become accustomed to, but that’s certainly no excuse.
Gay marriage? Of course I think gay people should be able to get married and have the same rights and responsibilities as married straight couples, including the title of marriage. The law doesn’t discriminate if people were married in the church or the courthouse, or even if they were common-law married after living together, as long as they have a valid marriage license. So why should it matter if that couple is the “traditional” one-person-who-defines-herself-as-a-female and one-person-who-defines-himself-as-a-male? There are something like 5 different factors that determine the sex of an individual, and you can’t always tell from looking at him or her what (if either) sex he or she is (I also think we need a gender-neutral 3rd person singular pronoun in English, like the French “on”). So the only argument that can be made against this is one about the gender of a person; and who freaking cares what gender another person defines him or herself as? As long as the partner understands, accepts, loves, and can tolerate marriage with that person, let’s allow it. After all, what the world needs now is love, sweet love. Let’s not squelch that. I don’t believe, however, that churches should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies by the government. I strongly support all separation of church and state and, just as I would like someone else’s church to stay out of my government, I would not impose my government on someone’s church. That decision should be up to each denomination, decided through whatever committees make those decisions. However, our civil servants who can perform non-religious marriage ceremonies should be required to perform gay marriages if asked because their power comes directly from the government. I believe personal freedoms, especially of this nature, promote peace and well being. To quote the T-shirt worn by one of the singing bartenders at the gay cowboy bar I went to last month, “Make awkward sexual advances, not war.” I would quote the other bartender’s shirt, but he wasn’t wearing one.
What was the other issue? Ah, assisted suicide. Along with the personal freedoms theme I’ve tried to promote thus far, I obviously am fine with this. However, here I actually have anecdotal experience that led me to support this before I thought too much about government interference in individual lives. In high school, I dated a guy who had cancer when we were in middle school. He went through chemo and the whole nine yards and hit his 5-years-in-remission milestone while we were dating. Overall, the guy was an ass, but he did teach me a little about the importance of attitude and how it affects quality of life. While he was in the hospital, he said, he never once prayed to a God he didn’t believe in, but instead he simply decided he was going to live through it, no matter what. He joked with the nurses, got sick out of car windows, made friends with a lot of peers in the cancer ward, and lost all his hair, but made it through everything (and even got a computer from the Make a Wish Foundation). On the other hand, some of those friends he made didn’t live through it. He said, though, that you could tell by people’s attitude when they had given up and had decided they were ready to die. And, after they made that personal decision, there wasn’t much else to be done. You could keep giving them treatments or praying over them or whatever else, but once that decision was made, that was the end. He never made that decision, kept fighting, and made it through extraordinarily well. Because of this experience, he said, he believed in the right of suicide, not just for old people, but for young people, children even, who had lost the hope they needed to survive. And I certainly cannot argue with that.
I think, fundamentally, we all agree on these issues. Obviously, no one wants the government to have more control over our personal lives and decisions, but none of us want to live next to the militia man who hoards rocket launchers he gets at gun shows and has a weird, nervous tic whenever you greet him from across your front lawn. How are you going to tell a guy like that to keep his dog from shitting in your yard? I think that if any of us were “into” guns (collecting, using for protection, hunting, whatever), we would have stronger and more clear-cut opinions on what the government can tell us and what is a reasonable limit. I don't know how much better my chances of surviving would be if I was mowed down with a machine gun or if I simply had a pistol unloaded into me, but then, if someone really wanted to kill/maim/rob/violate me, they could just club me over the head with a tree branch. Wherever you draw the line, if you draw a line at all, it's going to seem arbitrary to some people. Personally, I have a problem with limiting any type of previously allowed freedom. For example, although I'm a non-smoker, I have consistently voted against any type of smoking bans, but I’m thrilled when they pass without me. I hate inhaling other people's cancer and stinking like an ashtray, but it doesn't seem like a good solution to take away the legal right to smoke. (I would, however, have supported providing incentives to businesses for choosing to install better air conditioning and circulation systems or to ban smoking on their own premises. That way, it's the choice of individual businesses and not a requirement passed down from the Powers That Be.) I don't see a nationwide weapons ban happening anytime soon, and I'm not sure I would support it if it did. Actually, I think something like Florida's 10-20-Life rule makes more sense. I'm not totally familiar with this, but I believe that they add time to your normal sentence if your crime was committed with a gun, depending on how many offenses you've had. That punishes people who use guns to bad ends, but not people who simply own them for whatever reason.
Also, super-kudos to Glenn for bringing up the responsibility of a people to revolt against an oppressive government as a last resort. Citizens are responsible for keeping their government in line. Additionally, no one is ever too poor to move, even to another country. Poverty-stricken people have been immigrating (legally or illegally) to America and other countries for centuries. You may not be able to enjoy the level of comfort you’ve become accustomed to, but that’s certainly no excuse.
Gay marriage? Of course I think gay people should be able to get married and have the same rights and responsibilities as married straight couples, including the title of marriage. The law doesn’t discriminate if people were married in the church or the courthouse, or even if they were common-law married after living together, as long as they have a valid marriage license. So why should it matter if that couple is the “traditional” one-person-who-defines-herself-as-a-female and one-person-who-defines-himself-as-a-male? There are something like 5 different factors that determine the sex of an individual, and you can’t always tell from looking at him or her what (if either) sex he or she is (I also think we need a gender-neutral 3rd person singular pronoun in English, like the French “on”). So the only argument that can be made against this is one about the gender of a person; and who freaking cares what gender another person defines him or herself as? As long as the partner understands, accepts, loves, and can tolerate marriage with that person, let’s allow it. After all, what the world needs now is love, sweet love. Let’s not squelch that. I don’t believe, however, that churches should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies by the government. I strongly support all separation of church and state and, just as I would like someone else’s church to stay out of my government, I would not impose my government on someone’s church. That decision should be up to each denomination, decided through whatever committees make those decisions. However, our civil servants who can perform non-religious marriage ceremonies should be required to perform gay marriages if asked because their power comes directly from the government. I believe personal freedoms, especially of this nature, promote peace and well being. To quote the T-shirt worn by one of the singing bartenders at the gay cowboy bar I went to last month, “Make awkward sexual advances, not war.” I would quote the other bartender’s shirt, but he wasn’t wearing one.
What was the other issue? Ah, assisted suicide. Along with the personal freedoms theme I’ve tried to promote thus far, I obviously am fine with this. However, here I actually have anecdotal experience that led me to support this before I thought too much about government interference in individual lives. In high school, I dated a guy who had cancer when we were in middle school. He went through chemo and the whole nine yards and hit his 5-years-in-remission milestone while we were dating. Overall, the guy was an ass, but he did teach me a little about the importance of attitude and how it affects quality of life. While he was in the hospital, he said, he never once prayed to a God he didn’t believe in, but instead he simply decided he was going to live through it, no matter what. He joked with the nurses, got sick out of car windows, made friends with a lot of peers in the cancer ward, and lost all his hair, but made it through everything (and even got a computer from the Make a Wish Foundation). On the other hand, some of those friends he made didn’t live through it. He said, though, that you could tell by people’s attitude when they had given up and had decided they were ready to die. And, after they made that personal decision, there wasn’t much else to be done. You could keep giving them treatments or praying over them or whatever else, but once that decision was made, that was the end. He never made that decision, kept fighting, and made it through extraordinarily well. Because of this experience, he said, he believed in the right of suicide, not just for old people, but for young people, children even, who had lost the hope they needed to survive. And I certainly cannot argue with that.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Gun Crazy!? Yowza!
As left-winged and socialist as I usually am, I even surprise myself when the issue of gun control comes up. Being from Canada, and being terrified of even being near a gun, one would think that I would want the government to immediately ban all guns all the time. While I do think that obviously people shouldn't be able to just walk into the drug store and pick up Tylenol and a .45, I think the ownership of guns is an essential right in America.
Of course, here's where I start sounding crazy. Now unlike most people, I don't think that the ownership of guns is important to protect one's family against the roving bands of criminals ruling our streets (sarcasm). I'm also not one of those people who thinks teachers should be armed to stopped school shootings (stupid). I believe that the ownership of guns is essential because I am a firm believer in John Locke's assertion of the right of a people to revolt against their government in the instance that the government stops representing the people's best interest. Now obviously I don't mean if the government sends more troops to Iraq or raises taxes a dollar then we should take those motherfuckers down. But if the government were to abandon the theories of democracy and strip the people of their rights without the consent of the people then I think the people have a right and a duty to revolt. That might seem like a crazy possibility to us right now (hopefully crazy), but it could happen.
Nick has mentioned that obviously Joe Militia in Montana wouldn't be able to take down the United States Army with his stockpile of grenade launchers and surplus Soviet AK-47s, but if the situation ever deteriorated that much, it would only take a handful of people revolting to convince some people in the military to revolt as well. It's not like we're so separated from people in the armed forces that if there was open revolt they would blindly follow a government overstepping its boundaries. And that people can own weapons, and any home in America might possess at least a revolver would inject some level of fear in a totalitarian government.
There was actually an instance in the early 90s of two street gangs in Los Angeles (well armed militias, which I think the 2nd amendment also protects) uniting and making political demands of the local government to clean up the poor areas of town and to cease overly racist police practices. I doubt any of this did any good, but I think it is an interesting thing to cite.
I was going to cut this next paragraph because nobody will agree with me, but I decided to keep it for the sake of argument. I mentioned the word "duty" earlier, too, in speaking of a people revolting. I believe (and this will definitely get people angry) that the people of a country are complicit in the actions of their government. Sure, we may have voted against Bush in the last election (well, not me, because I can't vote), but by continuing to live in America we all share some responsibility for the actions of his administration. Protesting or writing against government policy absolves some guilt, but not all of it. Likewise, those people in dictatorships are responsible for the actions of their government, if they were not rising against the government. People in Nazi Germany, for example, were responsible for their government's actions. If they did not speak out against their government because they feared death, then they decided that life under that regime was acceptable. Therefore, if our government ever deteriorated into aggressive totalitarianism, then we would have a duty to revolt, or we would be guilty for whatever actions were made by the government.
As for assault weapons, they are dangerous weapons that do no good besides deal in death. But part of living in a free society is living in a dangerous society. Sure, by getting rid of these weapons (or all guns) on the market you might make this country safer. And by getting rid of guns in general you might make this country safer. But that rationale is also used by people who want to implement wiretapping on innocent civilians. By listening in to all of our phone calls, you might make America a safer place, but it would come at the cost of an element of freedom that I don't think is worth it.
Of course, here's where I start sounding crazy. Now unlike most people, I don't think that the ownership of guns is important to protect one's family against the roving bands of criminals ruling our streets (sarcasm). I'm also not one of those people who thinks teachers should be armed to stopped school shootings (stupid). I believe that the ownership of guns is essential because I am a firm believer in John Locke's assertion of the right of a people to revolt against their government in the instance that the government stops representing the people's best interest. Now obviously I don't mean if the government sends more troops to Iraq or raises taxes a dollar then we should take those motherfuckers down. But if the government were to abandon the theories of democracy and strip the people of their rights without the consent of the people then I think the people have a right and a duty to revolt. That might seem like a crazy possibility to us right now (hopefully crazy), but it could happen.
Nick has mentioned that obviously Joe Militia in Montana wouldn't be able to take down the United States Army with his stockpile of grenade launchers and surplus Soviet AK-47s, but if the situation ever deteriorated that much, it would only take a handful of people revolting to convince some people in the military to revolt as well. It's not like we're so separated from people in the armed forces that if there was open revolt they would blindly follow a government overstepping its boundaries. And that people can own weapons, and any home in America might possess at least a revolver would inject some level of fear in a totalitarian government.
There was actually an instance in the early 90s of two street gangs in Los Angeles (well armed militias, which I think the 2nd amendment also protects) uniting and making political demands of the local government to clean up the poor areas of town and to cease overly racist police practices. I doubt any of this did any good, but I think it is an interesting thing to cite.
I was going to cut this next paragraph because nobody will agree with me, but I decided to keep it for the sake of argument. I mentioned the word "duty" earlier, too, in speaking of a people revolting. I believe (and this will definitely get people angry) that the people of a country are complicit in the actions of their government. Sure, we may have voted against Bush in the last election (well, not me, because I can't vote), but by continuing to live in America we all share some responsibility for the actions of his administration. Protesting or writing against government policy absolves some guilt, but not all of it. Likewise, those people in dictatorships are responsible for the actions of their government, if they were not rising against the government. People in Nazi Germany, for example, were responsible for their government's actions. If they did not speak out against their government because they feared death, then they decided that life under that regime was acceptable. Therefore, if our government ever deteriorated into aggressive totalitarianism, then we would have a duty to revolt, or we would be guilty for whatever actions were made by the government.
As for assault weapons, they are dangerous weapons that do no good besides deal in death. But part of living in a free society is living in a dangerous society. Sure, by getting rid of these weapons (or all guns) on the market you might make this country safer. And by getting rid of guns in general you might make this country safer. But that rationale is also used by people who want to implement wiretapping on innocent civilians. By listening in to all of our phone calls, you might make America a safer place, but it would come at the cost of an element of freedom that I don't think is worth it.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
To Live, Love, or Own Guns
So many topics to talk about - so little time on the computer at the library!
I'm all for assisted suicide, but as I think it's been stated, there needs to be guidelines. Candidates should have to go through a psychological screening and maybe physical screening, so that anyone on a whim can't go in and kill themselves (of course they might just go out and find another means - but the denial would slow them down a bit). I think it should be the terminally ill, who would rather end their life on a positive note, rather than waste away in misery for the next few months, or people with Alzheimer's or those in a vegetative state. That's not to say perfectly healthy people should be restricted, but if they want to commit suicide, are they healthy mentally?
As for gun control, sigh, there are so many things to consider. Do you really help anything by putting up restrictions? If someone really wants an assault rifle they're going to do everything in their power to get it - especially if it's a criminal - do you think they're going to think twice about breaking a couple of gun laws to get what they want, especially if they have something much more sinister in mind for it? However petty criminals may not have that drive, and so yes, it may cut down on some crime. Like Jane, I know people who collect guns, but since they don't really use them, I doubt they would mind any kind of long term wait to get one, if a new law entailed such. In summation? I guess I'm for gun control, as long as it doesn't end up harming the people it's intended to protect.
For my final act - gay marriage. To help me illustrate my argument let me put in in terms of the civil rights movement. Say that blacks had all the same rights as whites (this wasn't the case, but hypothetically, indulge me), but it wasn't called the same thing because of the color of their skin - no one would stand for it. In essence you're still calling them less than because of something they can't help - because of the way God (if you believe in God) made them. To me it's the same thing with gay marriage. I think homosexuality is something ingrained - you're either born gay or you're not. (Here is an interesting article about something similar). To say that they can't have the word "marriage", simply because they are gay (something they can't help) is ridiculous. (Can you help the fact that you're heterosexual?). That being said, I don't think you can force churches to perform gay marriages - you probably won't have to, as there will be plenty willing to do it. However, I think that all states should recognize it (none of this crap where you can get married in Maryland, but you live in Florida, and Florida won't acknowledge it).
As for the institution of marriage, that to me has been destroyed. When a man can marry a woman and then senselessly beat her to death, but homosexuals can't marry? Please. Technically even divorce destroys the institution of marriage. It doesn't mean 'til death do you part anymore - it just means 'til I can't stand you and I find someone else to inflict myself upon. I don't think people even try to stay together anymore. With 1 in 3 couples getting divorced, it doesn't have the same stigma that it did long ago, and so people don't try as hard, don't go to counselling. (Is this enough of a conversation for you Nick?) So to say that gay marriage would go against the institution of marriage is a bit of a joke to me.
I think I've ranted enough for one day.
I'm all for assisted suicide, but as I think it's been stated, there needs to be guidelines. Candidates should have to go through a psychological screening and maybe physical screening, so that anyone on a whim can't go in and kill themselves (of course they might just go out and find another means - but the denial would slow them down a bit). I think it should be the terminally ill, who would rather end their life on a positive note, rather than waste away in misery for the next few months, or people with Alzheimer's or those in a vegetative state. That's not to say perfectly healthy people should be restricted, but if they want to commit suicide, are they healthy mentally?
As for gun control, sigh, there are so many things to consider. Do you really help anything by putting up restrictions? If someone really wants an assault rifle they're going to do everything in their power to get it - especially if it's a criminal - do you think they're going to think twice about breaking a couple of gun laws to get what they want, especially if they have something much more sinister in mind for it? However petty criminals may not have that drive, and so yes, it may cut down on some crime. Like Jane, I know people who collect guns, but since they don't really use them, I doubt they would mind any kind of long term wait to get one, if a new law entailed such. In summation? I guess I'm for gun control, as long as it doesn't end up harming the people it's intended to protect.
For my final act - gay marriage. To help me illustrate my argument let me put in in terms of the civil rights movement. Say that blacks had all the same rights as whites (this wasn't the case, but hypothetically, indulge me), but it wasn't called the same thing because of the color of their skin - no one would stand for it. In essence you're still calling them less than because of something they can't help - because of the way God (if you believe in God) made them. To me it's the same thing with gay marriage. I think homosexuality is something ingrained - you're either born gay or you're not. (Here is an interesting article about something similar). To say that they can't have the word "marriage", simply because they are gay (something they can't help) is ridiculous. (Can you help the fact that you're heterosexual?). That being said, I don't think you can force churches to perform gay marriages - you probably won't have to, as there will be plenty willing to do it. However, I think that all states should recognize it (none of this crap where you can get married in Maryland, but you live in Florida, and Florida won't acknowledge it).
As for the institution of marriage, that to me has been destroyed. When a man can marry a woman and then senselessly beat her to death, but homosexuals can't marry? Please. Technically even divorce destroys the institution of marriage. It doesn't mean 'til death do you part anymore - it just means 'til I can't stand you and I find someone else to inflict myself upon. I don't think people even try to stay together anymore. With 1 in 3 couples getting divorced, it doesn't have the same stigma that it did long ago, and so people don't try as hard, don't go to counselling. (Is this enough of a conversation for you Nick?) So to say that gay marriage would go against the institution of marriage is a bit of a joke to me.
I think I've ranted enough for one day.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
When Guns and Jane Intersect
Yesterday Nick wrote about three topics: assisted suicide, gay marriage and gun control. I wholeheartedly support assisted suicide for the terminally ill and for those in the early stages of Alzheimer’s who wish to leave their lives in dignity. I believe that gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples. But I can’t view gun control in black and white like I can assisted suicide and gay marriage. For that reason, I have elected to write about my experiences with guns over the course of my life. Then perhaps you will understand why I can’t formulate a specific answer to the question of gun control.
My mother owns two guns: a shotgun and a revolver. I’m not sure if she’s even fired either of them; I know for certain that she has never been in a position where she felt she had to use them. However, my mom lives alone, and having these guns makes her feel safe.
I was home this summer when my mom got the revolver. She wanted me to keep it in my house for protection, but I declined. Aside from the fact that I cannot hit a damn thing outside of point-blank range, when it came down to it, I personally didn’t want to have to deal with the risks and responsibilities of having a gun in my house. And if someone really did break in, could I actually shoot them? I don’t know. I don’t really want to find out.
While I was home this summer, I had to call 911 because the people living in the house next door were having an argument with someone. I called 911 at the point when that someone showed up with a gun and was standing on my neighbors’ front porch, screaming and waving said gun around.
An ex-boyfriend of mine pointed a gun (his father’s .45) at me on two different occasions, way back in the day. (If you know my dating history, I bet you won’t have any trouble guessing which ex this was! What *was* I thinking?)
A friend of mine is a gun buff. He has numerous weapons, ranging from handguns to rifles to an AK-47. Guns are one of his hobbies. He’s not using these weapons to kill people or to commit criminal acts. He is not a member of any sort of militia. This fellow is married; he has a great job and a large family. Not to worry, he keeps the guns locked away when he is not using them. I have gone shooting with him, and have personally witnessed how careful he is when it comes to safety.
Four years ago I worked for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (used to be called Florida Game and Fish) during hunting season. At the time I was otherwise unemployed and very much in need of a job. My job was to record data pertaining to all kills made by hunters in the Osceola National Forest during the 2002-2003 hunting season. This meant weighing and measuring dead deer (and the occasional wild hog) recording information on the hunter and the location of the kill, and cutting the jawbone out of the deer. I worked in ten hour shifts, and on most days not one single deer was brought in. I chalked that up to the fact that so many of the hunters who stopped in to chat on their way in or out of the forest were inebriated. Obviously the fact that hunting while intoxicated did little to stop the good ol’ boys of north-central Florida from doing that very thing.
My mother owns two guns: a shotgun and a revolver. I’m not sure if she’s even fired either of them; I know for certain that she has never been in a position where she felt she had to use them. However, my mom lives alone, and having these guns makes her feel safe.
I was home this summer when my mom got the revolver. She wanted me to keep it in my house for protection, but I declined. Aside from the fact that I cannot hit a damn thing outside of point-blank range, when it came down to it, I personally didn’t want to have to deal with the risks and responsibilities of having a gun in my house. And if someone really did break in, could I actually shoot them? I don’t know. I don’t really want to find out.
While I was home this summer, I had to call 911 because the people living in the house next door were having an argument with someone. I called 911 at the point when that someone showed up with a gun and was standing on my neighbors’ front porch, screaming and waving said gun around.
An ex-boyfriend of mine pointed a gun (his father’s .45) at me on two different occasions, way back in the day. (If you know my dating history, I bet you won’t have any trouble guessing which ex this was! What *was* I thinking?)
A friend of mine is a gun buff. He has numerous weapons, ranging from handguns to rifles to an AK-47. Guns are one of his hobbies. He’s not using these weapons to kill people or to commit criminal acts. He is not a member of any sort of militia. This fellow is married; he has a great job and a large family. Not to worry, he keeps the guns locked away when he is not using them. I have gone shooting with him, and have personally witnessed how careful he is when it comes to safety.
Four years ago I worked for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (used to be called Florida Game and Fish) during hunting season. At the time I was otherwise unemployed and very much in need of a job. My job was to record data pertaining to all kills made by hunters in the Osceola National Forest during the 2002-2003 hunting season. This meant weighing and measuring dead deer (and the occasional wild hog) recording information on the hunter and the location of the kill, and cutting the jawbone out of the deer. I worked in ten hour shifts, and on most days not one single deer was brought in. I chalked that up to the fact that so many of the hunters who stopped in to chat on their way in or out of the forest were inebriated. Obviously the fact that hunting while intoxicated did little to stop the good ol’ boys of north-central Florida from doing that very thing.
According to wikipedia, the murder rate in the US (including murders not involving handguns) was 5.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2005.
I have spent a LOT of time in Russia. Gun ownership is illegal there. Of course, if you pay attention to the news, you must know that the murder rate in Russia is incredibly high. According to Guns and Ammo magazine:
Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6 [per 100,000 people]. (According to Wikipedia it’s actually 19.8 murders per 100,000 people as of 2000; Guns and Ammo doesn’t cite their source.)
Obviously, outlawing personal ownership of firearms has done little to reduce violence in Russia.
Some of my favorite memories from my most recent trip to Russia are of the days when my friends and I went out into the countryside, barbecued lunch, got rather inebriated and spent hours shooting BB guns at various targets. We did this a LOT. I imagine these guys would have LOVED to have had the opportunity to shoot real guns. I also imagine that they would not have reduced their consumption of alcohol just because their weapons were real.
Back in 2000 I rather accidentally ended up at a mafia-run club in Moscow. My friend and I were allowed entrance (for free even) once the bouncers learned that we were Americans. However, before we could enter we were felt-up (er, “searched”) by a very burly Russian security guard holding an AK-47. I would prefer to never experience that again!
I currently live in South Korea, another country where private firearm ownership is illegal. According to wikipedia, the murder rate in South Korea for 2004 was 2.18 per 100,000 people.
Here in South Korea, you can buy incredibly realistic toy guns. Back home, toy makers are restricted to producing only toy guns which are obviously toys. This makes sense, as no one wants to be robbed at gunpoint only to later learn they were robbed by a toy fun. And of course, you don’t want to get shot by a cop who thought you were pointing a *real* gun. It definitely gave me a shock the first time I saw one of my first graders holding an incredibly realistic looking handgun, although I’ve certainly since gotten used to the sight of them.
So there you go. The above are the points in time when guns and my life have intersected. As to whether or not there should be restrictions or bans on gun ownership… well, perhaps you can see why I don’t know.
Monday, January 01, 2007
No Donnie, These Men Are Nihilists
I will apologize in advance for today's post; since I'm tasked with being the first this week, and it just so happens that today is New Year's Day, and I'm very tired from being out late last night and not getting much sleep. I had a topic in mind, but after my conversation with Glenn last night, I thought I'd try something that might inspire some disagreements.
I think we'd all for the most part agree on many important issues of the day, issues that are important to me, such as raising the minimum wage, ending corporate welfare, etc. (I'd list more but I'm too lazy right now). But there are some that are not such easy calls. These issues are, admittedly, not of as much importance to me as others, but they are ones that get touted in the media as being so important and moral and whatnot. Here is my "stand" on a few controversial issues.
I'm pro-suicide. I think that people should have control of their lives, and this includes the taking of their own life. Now, obviously I think that if someone is attempting suicide and needs help, obviously they should be given help. But if someone is terminally ill, or losing their mind, they should have the choice to end their own life. I've never understood why prolonging one's life to the last possible second, no matter what pain (physical or mental) might be ahead, is of such importance. There are, after all, things much worse than death. I'm pretty terrified of death, but if I was faced with losing my mind and memories, or a painful degenerate death, I would choose not to go through with it. But we live in a society where even when someone is in a vegetative state, we want to prolong their life.
I'm pro gun control. I wrestle with this one; I think that obviously people should be allowed to have a gun, for whatever reason: hunting, self-defense, or even just because they like guns. That's fine. And obviously the second amendment establishes the right to bear arms. I would argue, though, that the framers of our Constitution obviously couldn't anticipate the AK-47, or cop-killer bullets, and the other assorted weapons that obviously aren't used for hunting or any rational self-defense. I wouldn't take away someone's hunting gun, or the gun that's under the bed just in case someone breaks into the house, or whatever, but I think that some gun control laws are necessary. The fact that this issue isn't much in the public debate anymore shows how effective the Right Wing has been in making his issue non-negotiable; though some argue that the Left has at least won some gun control laws under Clinton, and the NRA no longer fights against these laws that are on the books- these laws, of course, don't have much teeth to them, and I will always hope that, if the Democrats can hold some power for several years, we can shift the debate back in our direction.
The last issue I'll bring up is gay marriage. I'm somewhat torn on this issue. Now, obviously I don't personally care what gay people do. I'm not gay. It has no impact on me. And I strongly believe that it is a civil rights issue and anyone, especially regardless of their sexual orientations, should have the same rights. To me, that's not even an issue, and I don't understand why anyone would even think twice. I mean, how can heterosexuals, some of which do some pretty morally reprehensible things in their heterosexuality, say anything about anyone else's sexuality (I also find it ironic that those on the Right will legislate people's personal lives, what goes on in one's bedrooms and homes, but cry about government intervention if anyone on the Left mentions any sort of gun control). It's also my view that those who are so vehement about homosexuals are likely closeted homosexuals, for why else would they be so threatened about it? However, I'm torn on the issue of whether gays should be married in the same way as heterosexuals. Obviously I am for civil unions, and I am for homosexuals having every single identical right that anyone else has, and get the same treatment that any other couples get. But I think that, in a way, I might still prefer the word and "institution" of traditional marriage stay the way it is. I'm of the understanding that gays want to have the same rights as those that are married, and I'm for that. Does it make a difference if it's exactly done in the same way as marriage has traditionally been done? Which one will be husband and which one will be wife? (I must note here, before anyone unleashes any sort of wrath on me, that I'm being somewhat of a devil's advocate here; I don't feel very strongly about this issue- except, of course, that everyone should have the same rights, including two people in love regardless of the individuals. I'm only hoping to spark some conversation).
Now, I'm back to lying around doing nothing and watching my Twilight Zone marathon.
I think we'd all for the most part agree on many important issues of the day, issues that are important to me, such as raising the minimum wage, ending corporate welfare, etc. (I'd list more but I'm too lazy right now). But there are some that are not such easy calls. These issues are, admittedly, not of as much importance to me as others, but they are ones that get touted in the media as being so important and moral and whatnot. Here is my "stand" on a few controversial issues.
I'm pro-suicide. I think that people should have control of their lives, and this includes the taking of their own life. Now, obviously I think that if someone is attempting suicide and needs help, obviously they should be given help. But if someone is terminally ill, or losing their mind, they should have the choice to end their own life. I've never understood why prolonging one's life to the last possible second, no matter what pain (physical or mental) might be ahead, is of such importance. There are, after all, things much worse than death. I'm pretty terrified of death, but if I was faced with losing my mind and memories, or a painful degenerate death, I would choose not to go through with it. But we live in a society where even when someone is in a vegetative state, we want to prolong their life.
I'm pro gun control. I wrestle with this one; I think that obviously people should be allowed to have a gun, for whatever reason: hunting, self-defense, or even just because they like guns. That's fine. And obviously the second amendment establishes the right to bear arms. I would argue, though, that the framers of our Constitution obviously couldn't anticipate the AK-47, or cop-killer bullets, and the other assorted weapons that obviously aren't used for hunting or any rational self-defense. I wouldn't take away someone's hunting gun, or the gun that's under the bed just in case someone breaks into the house, or whatever, but I think that some gun control laws are necessary. The fact that this issue isn't much in the public debate anymore shows how effective the Right Wing has been in making his issue non-negotiable; though some argue that the Left has at least won some gun control laws under Clinton, and the NRA no longer fights against these laws that are on the books- these laws, of course, don't have much teeth to them, and I will always hope that, if the Democrats can hold some power for several years, we can shift the debate back in our direction.
The last issue I'll bring up is gay marriage. I'm somewhat torn on this issue. Now, obviously I don't personally care what gay people do. I'm not gay. It has no impact on me. And I strongly believe that it is a civil rights issue and anyone, especially regardless of their sexual orientations, should have the same rights. To me, that's not even an issue, and I don't understand why anyone would even think twice. I mean, how can heterosexuals, some of which do some pretty morally reprehensible things in their heterosexuality, say anything about anyone else's sexuality (I also find it ironic that those on the Right will legislate people's personal lives, what goes on in one's bedrooms and homes, but cry about government intervention if anyone on the Left mentions any sort of gun control). It's also my view that those who are so vehement about homosexuals are likely closeted homosexuals, for why else would they be so threatened about it? However, I'm torn on the issue of whether gays should be married in the same way as heterosexuals. Obviously I am for civil unions, and I am for homosexuals having every single identical right that anyone else has, and get the same treatment that any other couples get. But I think that, in a way, I might still prefer the word and "institution" of traditional marriage stay the way it is. I'm of the understanding that gays want to have the same rights as those that are married, and I'm for that. Does it make a difference if it's exactly done in the same way as marriage has traditionally been done? Which one will be husband and which one will be wife? (I must note here, before anyone unleashes any sort of wrath on me, that I'm being somewhat of a devil's advocate here; I don't feel very strongly about this issue- except, of course, that everyone should have the same rights, including two people in love regardless of the individuals. I'm only hoping to spark some conversation).
Now, I'm back to lying around doing nothing and watching my Twilight Zone marathon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
