View Single Post
  #10  
Old 01-05-2013, 05:10 PM
Mazryonh Mazryonh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 290
Default

Yeah, the internet (like television before it) was once touted by the overly-optimistic as a technology that would "unite humanity." Instead, people on the internet gravitate to others who mirror their own biases, so in fact it's divided us into ever-smaller niches.

I'm sure the membership here would be much higher if the requirements weren't so strict, but it's better that they're strict than to suffer an influx of spammers, fanboys, and know-nothings.

Okay, here's my attempt at stirring the pot here. Makes me wonder if the pot will turn out to be full of Nitroglycerin.

----

(As a disclaimer, I am of the opinion that there is "no silver bullet" with regards to gun control, and that the assault weapons ban is based on a mistaken definition--why couldn't they have called them "military-grade" features? Mind you, I don't think that things like a pistol grip or bayonet mount count as military-grade features.)

Isn't Senator Feinstein as much a public servant as Cpl. Boston was? In fact, everyone in the USA who pays taxes paid in some part for his salary, upkeep, equipment, etc. Feinstein is out to represent those people who've been paying Cpl. Boston who have become concerned, and deserves as much respect as Boston demands.

The first thing I think Cpl. Boston is missing is the fact that everyone needs to be held accountable in a civil society, especially with regards to weapons that are lethally effective at great distances against which the vast majority of people have no effective defense. To put it in a military context I'm sure Cpl. Boston would have been familiar with, everyone in the military had to be accountable with their weapons to prevent unauthorized use or to prevent the wrong people from obtaining military-grade weaponry. Boston himself would have had to turn in his weaponry if he were found to be unfit for duty for whatever reason while still in the military. We regulate cars in the same manner by requiring licenses and driving tests, and revoking such licenses if the user is found to be unfit to drive.

The civilian registration of weaponry is a logical extension of this accountability--registering weapons will allow law enforcement to (confidentially) track who owns what so as to keep track of when guns go missing or end up in the wrong hands (a common way criminals become armed). This will help hold the original purchasers accountable for any wrongdoings.

Another problem is the way Cpl. Boston uses the term "American," as though that automatically included anyone who responsibly uses firearms and excluded anyone who didn't (and possibly anyone within America who didn't agree with the user's ideology). It reminds me of the way people use the term "law-abiding citizen" when it comes to who should and shouldn't be allowed to use firearms.

The problem with both those terms is that they are more or less a blank check, because they have no prognostic (predictive) value and don't dig deep enough. Just stepping on a scale will tell you your weight, but without a more thorough examination from a GP, you can't tell what you're at risk for. Similarly, the term "law-abiding citizen" tells us nothing about what the person being referred to is likely to do in the future, or if s/he is likely to be of unsound mind around his/her weaponry. The Sandy Hook massacre (and the Fort Hood massacre before it) throws that problem into stark relief.

Something perhaps Cpl. Boston should have learned (had he deployed to counterinsurgency areas and had to mingle with civilians of dubious allegiance and intentions) is that the enemy can be closer than you think. Captain Trevor Greene of the Canadian forces sat down one fateful day in 2006 to sit down and have a talk with Afghan village elders, and got an axe in his head for his trouble when he took off his helmet to show respect. While I daresay that "I thought he was green" attacks are quickly becoming old hat in military circles (just look at the recent shootings of Coalition personnel from Afghan/Iraqi army personnel), the problem is also present in civilian shooting attacks.

Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen up until it was too late. Better regulation, qualification, and enforcement would help to reduce the chances of the next Adam Lanza, or Dylan Klebold, or Eric Harris, or Dedrick Owens (the 6-year old shooter who shot and killed one of his classmates after telling her "I don't like you") from arising. Sadly the human mind is a fragile thing and it doesn't take much in the form of bad genes/experiences/ideas to turn someone into a despondent wreck, or a paranoid schizophrenic, or a deeply-humiliated-and-vengeful-person-with-weaponry. I would think that Cpl. Boston would at least be passingly familiar with how many of his comrades-in-arms are suffering from mental illness or substance abuse problems brought on by PTSD.

If we could charge a "state premium" of sorts on "military-grade magazines" and semiautomatic weaponry, as well as requiring mandatory secure storage (including ensuring that no one potentially unstable knows how to access weapons at home), "one gun a month" regulations, mandatory mental health screenings, mandatory and regular qualifications to ensure a user knows how to safely use and store a firearm, including possible suspension/disqualification if a license-holder picks up a substance abuse habit or acquires a mental illness (perhaps like how a driver's license is suspended if someone starts to abuse alcohol?), then we would have a standard by which to measure and disqualify responsible firearms owners. We certainly don't need more Nancy Lanzas (who enabled her son's rampage by stockpiling weaponry that was not properly secured, as well as training her son in the use the guns) or straw purchasers around.
-----

Having said all this, I wonder if any of these pro-gun-control senators realize just how willing some people are to bypass the limitations of their firearms technology. Any good fan of Westerns would probably have seen how the gunslingers of those days got lots of on-demand firepower before there was such a thing as a semiautomatic weapon, or even a double-action revolver. They used to fan their old six-shooters to get a faster rate of fire, or used lever-action rifles/shotguns to fire more quickly, or slam-fired their shotguns. Even users of single-shot black powder pistols either carried several for more quick shots (much like revolver users would later do), or used Duck's Foot multi-barrel pistols.

I'm sure no one here wants a return to the Roaring Twenties in America where drive-by shootings with fully-automatic tommy guns was "par for the course." But the more difficult we make it for the wrong people to obtain firearms and the more we weed out the wrong people with the right regulatory measures, the more we can ensure only the responsible people own and maintain firearms.

Last edited by Mazryonh; 01-27-2013 at 11:34 AM.
Reply With Quote