Rant
'Inherently dangerous' is a phrase that gets overused in the gun debate. To my mind, the only types of weapons which are inherently dangerous are Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Just about every other 'weapon,' if you leave it alone, it doesn't hurt you, or anyone else. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons can do harm by their mere presence, when not properly contained. A gun (machine gun, pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc) cannot do harm by its mere presence. I can take the loaded Glock out of the holster on my hip and set it on the table, and it's not going to do anything more than it was in the holster. Maybe, just maybe, a weapon can fire through no external action, if it's poorly made and/or poorly maintained, but that's it.
It's no different than a knife or a sword or a cinderblock. Not inherently dangerous, but dangerous if used in a dangerous fashion. I won't say misused, since a sword or a knife is, as much as a gun, intended to rend flesh, whereas a cinder block is not. It's up to the user to ensure that the item in question is operated in a safe manner until such a time comes as it is necessary to operate it in a 'dangerous' manner (hunting, self-defense, etc.), wherein the item is used to cause harm to something or someone. It's the operator's responsibility, not the item's. You can't lay responsibility upon an inanimate object, it has no will, and no capacity to exercise judgement, good or bad.
It frustrates me to no end to have people crying out to legislators (or legislators crying out, themselves) about all these 'inherently dangerous' weapons that 'must be' restricted/banned/registered. It's as if it's too much to ask of our lawmakers to understand that irresponsibility with the item should be punished, not mere possession and proper, appropriate use. I'm sure, yes, that there are those out there who would argue that there are no 'proper, appropriate' uses, including self-defense, and I would simply respond that they're welcome to maintain such a philosophy for themselves and that I hope, for their sakes, that they never lose life, limb, or property because of it.
Ergh. The sad part is that all my frustration and ranting will never amount to anything, because I have no sway with people in positions to see that legislation I like comes to be.
It's no different than a knife or a sword or a cinderblock. Not inherently dangerous, but dangerous if used in a dangerous fashion. I won't say misused, since a sword or a knife is, as much as a gun, intended to rend flesh, whereas a cinder block is not. It's up to the user to ensure that the item in question is operated in a safe manner until such a time comes as it is necessary to operate it in a 'dangerous' manner (hunting, self-defense, etc.), wherein the item is used to cause harm to something or someone. It's the operator's responsibility, not the item's. You can't lay responsibility upon an inanimate object, it has no will, and no capacity to exercise judgement, good or bad.
It frustrates me to no end to have people crying out to legislators (or legislators crying out, themselves) about all these 'inherently dangerous' weapons that 'must be' restricted/banned/registered. It's as if it's too much to ask of our lawmakers to understand that irresponsibility with the item should be punished, not mere possession and proper, appropriate use. I'm sure, yes, that there are those out there who would argue that there are no 'proper, appropriate' uses, including self-defense, and I would simply respond that they're welcome to maintain such a philosophy for themselves and that I hope, for their sakes, that they never lose life, limb, or property because of it.
Ergh. The sad part is that all my frustration and ranting will never amount to anything, because I have no sway with people in positions to see that legislation I like comes to be.