One of those "someone is wrong on the internet" posts--on guns...
The son of some friends is a serious gun nut and not terribly thoughtful about it. I commented on his post and got flamed by one of his friends. So I asked
"Why don't you explain to me why driving a car requires training and licensing, but guns--which are at least as dangerous--don't. And, if by militia, you mean armed service, I'll point out that there is all kind of training that goes with that. Ad hominen attacks feel good, but don't really make your point. They do, however, make me wonder whether you would go batshit crazy if the country did enact gun regulations. Or would you abide by the law of the land, even if you don't much like it? I am asking these questions seriously--I don't expect to agree with your answers, but I do want to understand your point of view."
Here was his response:
I've spent way more time and money on firearms training than I ever have on driver training. That includes the classes and clinics for my motorcycle license, SCCA license, and for work driving (which was actually lots of fun slaloming my work truck around a parking lot)
The facts would also indicate that you're more likely to be hurt or killed on the highway than you are with a firearm. But firearms are meant to hurt and kill, and obviously are more scary. So people feel guns need to be more regulated. Guns are more scary, because politicians and the mainstream media paint them that way. Politicians have a real reason to be afraid of guns. Guns keep us citizens instead of subjects. The world isn't such a nice and rosey place (no matter how much we want it to be here in America) that governments aren't overthrown and dictators deposed even now. America got most of it right, we just need to stay the course and stop giving up our liberties.
Our country has already enacted a metric shit ton of gun regulations. I'm am still a law abiding citizen, grudgingly so some days. Read this for a prep course: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php. The other problem I see, when a law is unjust, its your responsibility to not follow it. Batshit crazy by who's definition? You have a thinly veiled threat that somehow me not supporting unconstitutional laws means you'll have to report me as 5150 and have my guns taken away. Is hoplophobia a mental disease? Freud thinks so, and he knew an awful lot about that stuff...
I think that answered your questions.
Tell me one thing your passionate about. Perhaps a hobby?
Then can I ask you a few questions? How much and what sort of training and licensing do you think we should require of NEW gun owners? What about existing gun owners who purchase NEW guns? Who should pay for the classes? If you can't pay for the class, should you be denied your rights to self protection because you're poor? Should the state assist with the costs? Should we teach marksmanship and/or gun safety in public schools like we do driver's ed, algebra, and sex ed?
What sorts of licensing, and testing, and training should we require of people before they exercise their natural rights (God given as some call them) like free speech?
Why do you want more gun control? To make the world a safer place, right? What if I told you that there are 15 other ways you're more likely to be hurt or killed and that we could save more lives by addressing those issues, and more cheaply, too? If you didn't want to address those issues, would it be fair of me to assume that you're not interested in saving childrens' lives, but that you're more interested in taking away the civil rights of law abiding citizens???
Driving is not a right, its a privilege. Rights don't need licenses.
You know whats really batshit crazy? Driving, or traveling in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness... you know, driving to work, should be a right and not a DMV granted privilege that they can take from you on a whim based on the accusations of another human being without a conviction.
Here's my response:
- Training: You say you have spent a lot of money on training. That’s great. But is it required? When I have visited the shooting range, no one has asked to see whether I have had any training. There is a difference between voluntarily being responsible and having that responsibility enforced.
- The analogy between guns and cars is imperfect (and Noah’s comment shows how easy it is to trivialize the difference). Yes, cars kill people. (Although, when I drive, I am impressed by how dangerous the vehicle is, how mindful most drivers are of the rules of the road, but also how easy it is for one bad or careless driver to screw things up for the rest of us.) But we talk about how and why. We require seatbelts now, which actually do help (statistically). We have cracked down on DUIs. And, while technically driving is a privilege, the purpose of a car is transportation and the reality is that our infrastructure is set up so that managing without a car is very, very difficult. This means that access to a car is close to a necessity.
While technically gun ownership is a right-although I do not accept the NRA’s definition of that right as unlimited, the reality is that for most of us (and I know people who hunt for food, so I would explicitly except them), there is no need for a gun (and I’ll get into the argument about subjects and citizens, etc. below, no fear). Owning and shooting a gun is something done for pleasure. I have no problem with this-I’ve done it; I’ve taken my children and nephew shooting, and I get it: it’s fun to hit the mark and fun to do it with different kinds of weapons. But part of my (very minimal) training was by a good friend (and absolutist about keeping guns uncontrolled) who began by stressing that, yeah, guns are lethal and making sure we got the safety piece of this. So no, I don’t think I’m being irrational about thinking guns are lethal-they are. - Now, about that “subjects v citizens” argument. See, that is the part of your argument I find absolutely terrifying. It’s ultimately an argument against government of any kind and for the dissolution of civil society. The places in the world today where there is the most violence, fear, etc. are those places where government has stopped (or never started) to function. The examples that are frequently cited-Hitler’s Germany, Mao, Stalin, and so on-happened because the society was already failing. More guns for the citizenry would not have resulted in a better outcome; a better economy and government would have.
I’ve thought and read about this quite a bit-I’m a Jew and take what the Nazis did to Jews rather personally. My friend mentioned above used this argument to support his position on guns. But I think it misses the larger problems that would have subsumed personal guns.
Here’s the thing-we are all citizens, we are not subjects. We don’t have a dictator, nor are we likely to. We have not been subjects since 1776. There is no move to take over our government-either by the right or by the left. That doesn’t mean I like or support everything the government does either (although I suspect my objections are different from yours). It means that as a citizen, I have the responsibility to get involved-not withdraw into some private militia (and let me tell you, that scares the shit out of me!) - Thinly veiled threat? Huh? No, that really is fear on my part. I don’t own a gun and don’t want to have to own one. I want to be part of a civil society-which largely exists-in which we pay for the common good and common protection. What scares me is the fear that the 2/3 of us who don’t own guns, along with those gun owners who support some regulation, do enact regulation and those who own guns-including that militia you linked to (speaking of thinly veiled threats!)-rise up in revolt. Since y’all are armed, what are the rest of us going to do? I cannot tell you how strongly I object to LaPierre’s statement about good guys and bad guys. If that is really what he-and perhaps you-believe, then the result is an armed, distrustful country. There are places in this country like that (perhaps you want to head into West Oakland to check it out), but if that is the best we can do…we’re in deep trouble.
- As to your questions-actually, I think gun safety, etc. should be taught in schools, in a similar way to driver’s education. And it’s not so much gun control I want as the ability to discuss the issues. We have limits on all the rights in the Bill of Rights. For example, you can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. And there are limits on what you can say about people without becoming libelous. I’m just asking for a similar rational discussion about this (and sure, I’d ask the folks who want no guns anywhere to chill as well).
Just posting here for reference--though wouldn't mind comments, if any...