Soap box moment
Okay. I saw this story on CNN this morning. Vincent D'Onofrio is in a new ad asking for a change in the gun laws: mainly to no longer allow civilian use of high-capacity gun clips. I think this is a totally fair compromise between the anti- and pro-gun lobbies. It doesn't take away civilian use of hand guns, but it takes away the ability to loose 30-some-odd rounds in a go. This comes, of course, after Laughner had several of these high-capacity clips when opening fire on the crowd in Tucson.
*Soap box* Here's the reason I'm completely anti-gun, in particular anti-hand gun: when I was a kid (sometime about age 8ish) my father threatened me with one. He had been sexually abusing me for years. During that time he'd threatened the lives of my mother, my sister, and even my cat as a way to keep me silent about what was going on. One day, he decided that he needed to up the threat. What I remember is sitting on the edge of the bed in the master bedroom. It was pretty dark. Dad was off to my right. I had a revolver pushed against my right temple. I can feel the cold of the steel to this day. He told me something - the exact words are a blur, as expected when all of your focus is on the fact that a gun is pressed to your head. To really drive home the point he cocked the gun. He said something else. Then he pulled the trigger. I can hear the click on the empty chamber as I write this. It obviously worked, because I said nothing. (I also repressed this memory until about five years ago; my brain's way of protecting my sanity as a child.) Dad was a hunter - which was yet another way of expressing his sociopathy and love of torturing living things. This excused his ownership of several rifles, shot guns, and this revolver. There were other times where he'd be cleaning his shot guns and, for "fun," he'd point it at me and pull the trigger.
No civilian, in my opinion, needs to own a hand gun. This whole "The Second Amendment protects our right to own guns and carry them on our person for protection" stuff is complete bullshit. No one seems to remember that the Second Amendment was written just after a time of war. It made sense for everyone to have a gun, so they could protect themselves in times of conflict. The text of the Amendment says this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A militia. A civilian army, used to protect the country. We are not in a war state in the U.S. Thus there is no real reason for a civilian to carry a weapon for any other reason than for hunting. Personally, I think that even hunters should be limited to rifles/shot guns, since I can see no reason to carry a hand gun. To me, a hand gun's one purpose is to be used against another person. In England, even the police don't carry a hand gun, and they're able to enforce laws just fine.
If regular citizens are still allowed to carry personal weapons, which will never be taken away at this point, there need to be stricter laws controlling access. Bigger, more extensive, databases are needed to keep certain people from buying a gun. Those with psychiatric problems, for example (and I say this as someone with bipolar disorder. I'd be afraid that in a deep depression I'd use it on myself, and in a manic episode, potentially hurt others.), shouldn't be allowed to own one. Anyone with a criminal record should be forever banned from owning one - I know some places do a background check, but as I understand it, some of the databases aren't country-wide. Guns should be restricted as to where they can be bought/sold. Only specifically set up firearms stores, who do nothing but sell weapons, should be the only way to get a gun. This whole thing of being able to buy guns at Wal-Mart and at gun shows is ridiculous. Sellers should be specially trained to deal with gun sales - able to identify those with obvious signs of intent to use, for example - and be allowed to use their discretion in whether or not to sell a person a gun. There should be a much longer waiting period, since three days? Totally not good for those who intent to use it for bad purposes, as that's not a long enough wait for them to cool off. Finally, I feel like there should be mandatory weapons training. This would mean that someone would need to go through a comprehensive course that will teach not only good marksmanship, but good decision-making with regard to whether or not to use your gun in certain situations. I would use the example of the guy in Tucson who helped with the shooting situation. He had a gun on him at the time he heard the gunshots. He drew it, and then went to assess the situation. He saw one man wielding a gun. In a great moment of logic, he decided to holster his weapon and tackle the gunman instead. It's a good thing he did so, since the guy with the gun that he tackled was NOT Jared Laughner. The man was just another citizen carrying a firearm. Had the guy actually used his weapon, he would have killed an innocent man also attempting to control the dangerous situation.
What sparked all of these thoughts for me was part of that story on CNN. This one gun proponent said the most amazing thing. That a civilian needed to be able to own an extended magazine, because what if you run out of rounds in a regular 16-round clip, and the person is still not down? What would you do then? I was apoplectic. If you own a hand gun, and are carrying it for personal protection, there should be absolutely NO reason for you to need to empty a regular clip into a guy and have him still be alive. If you're really that bad of a shot, you shouldn't be allowed to have your weapon at all. Loosing several rounds to put a guy down is fine. I get that. But more than 3 rounds and the person is still alive? Ridiculous. If you own a gun, you damn well better know how to use it properly and accurately.
Okay. That's it. I swear. I just had to express my frustration with the pro-gun lobby, who, I believe, actually help those who want to commit crimes, instead of allowing for more personal protection.
*Soap box* Here's the reason I'm completely anti-gun, in particular anti-hand gun: when I was a kid (sometime about age 8ish) my father threatened me with one. He had been sexually abusing me for years. During that time he'd threatened the lives of my mother, my sister, and even my cat as a way to keep me silent about what was going on. One day, he decided that he needed to up the threat. What I remember is sitting on the edge of the bed in the master bedroom. It was pretty dark. Dad was off to my right. I had a revolver pushed against my right temple. I can feel the cold of the steel to this day. He told me something - the exact words are a blur, as expected when all of your focus is on the fact that a gun is pressed to your head. To really drive home the point he cocked the gun. He said something else. Then he pulled the trigger. I can hear the click on the empty chamber as I write this. It obviously worked, because I said nothing. (I also repressed this memory until about five years ago; my brain's way of protecting my sanity as a child.) Dad was a hunter - which was yet another way of expressing his sociopathy and love of torturing living things. This excused his ownership of several rifles, shot guns, and this revolver. There were other times where he'd be cleaning his shot guns and, for "fun," he'd point it at me and pull the trigger.
No civilian, in my opinion, needs to own a hand gun. This whole "The Second Amendment protects our right to own guns and carry them on our person for protection" stuff is complete bullshit. No one seems to remember that the Second Amendment was written just after a time of war. It made sense for everyone to have a gun, so they could protect themselves in times of conflict. The text of the Amendment says this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A militia. A civilian army, used to protect the country. We are not in a war state in the U.S. Thus there is no real reason for a civilian to carry a weapon for any other reason than for hunting. Personally, I think that even hunters should be limited to rifles/shot guns, since I can see no reason to carry a hand gun. To me, a hand gun's one purpose is to be used against another person. In England, even the police don't carry a hand gun, and they're able to enforce laws just fine.
If regular citizens are still allowed to carry personal weapons, which will never be taken away at this point, there need to be stricter laws controlling access. Bigger, more extensive, databases are needed to keep certain people from buying a gun. Those with psychiatric problems, for example (and I say this as someone with bipolar disorder. I'd be afraid that in a deep depression I'd use it on myself, and in a manic episode, potentially hurt others.), shouldn't be allowed to own one. Anyone with a criminal record should be forever banned from owning one - I know some places do a background check, but as I understand it, some of the databases aren't country-wide. Guns should be restricted as to where they can be bought/sold. Only specifically set up firearms stores, who do nothing but sell weapons, should be the only way to get a gun. This whole thing of being able to buy guns at Wal-Mart and at gun shows is ridiculous. Sellers should be specially trained to deal with gun sales - able to identify those with obvious signs of intent to use, for example - and be allowed to use their discretion in whether or not to sell a person a gun. There should be a much longer waiting period, since three days? Totally not good for those who intent to use it for bad purposes, as that's not a long enough wait for them to cool off. Finally, I feel like there should be mandatory weapons training. This would mean that someone would need to go through a comprehensive course that will teach not only good marksmanship, but good decision-making with regard to whether or not to use your gun in certain situations. I would use the example of the guy in Tucson who helped with the shooting situation. He had a gun on him at the time he heard the gunshots. He drew it, and then went to assess the situation. He saw one man wielding a gun. In a great moment of logic, he decided to holster his weapon and tackle the gunman instead. It's a good thing he did so, since the guy with the gun that he tackled was NOT Jared Laughner. The man was just another citizen carrying a firearm. Had the guy actually used his weapon, he would have killed an innocent man also attempting to control the dangerous situation.
What sparked all of these thoughts for me was part of that story on CNN. This one gun proponent said the most amazing thing. That a civilian needed to be able to own an extended magazine, because what if you run out of rounds in a regular 16-round clip, and the person is still not down? What would you do then? I was apoplectic. If you own a hand gun, and are carrying it for personal protection, there should be absolutely NO reason for you to need to empty a regular clip into a guy and have him still be alive. If you're really that bad of a shot, you shouldn't be allowed to have your weapon at all. Loosing several rounds to put a guy down is fine. I get that. But more than 3 rounds and the person is still alive? Ridiculous. If you own a gun, you damn well better know how to use it properly and accurately.
Okay. That's it. I swear. I just had to express my frustration with the pro-gun lobby, who, I believe, actually help those who want to commit crimes, instead of allowing for more personal protection.