Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I SHOOT, I SUPPORT GUN CONTROL

Yep, that's right. Just like the Title says... "I Shoot" AND "I support Gun Control". Not Gun Bans (though I understand the call for bans on "Assault Weapons" and I can see why people do support this - I am agnostic on them leaning towards supporting the ban), but reasonable Gun Control.
I add this so that people have some context.

Understand.... I am no pacifist. At one point I thought I was. I was wrong. I practice a very aggressive style of Martial Arts called Krav Maga. I do abhor violence for the purpose of assault or other crimes and I would NEVER initiate violence for that purpose. But I do enjoy fight sports and enjoy sparring. I think people should be fully equipped with knowledge of how to defend themselves if the need arises.
That said... I also enjoy shooting my pistol (A Glock 17 9mm)

Here is me shooting said Gun:


I enjoy shooting. There is something about it that I just really enjoy. I take classes in Israeli Tactical Point Shooting - (which has an emphasis on dealing with terror situations and not criminal assault, rounds are not chambered until the gun is actually pulled). The more I go through these classes the more I realize just how powerful a gun really is, and how it should never be taken lightly or be a weapon of "first resort". The rhetoric coming from the NRA and hard-core supporters sickens me. In my opinion, when a gun becomes a response of "first resort", these are the people that should absolutely NOT have guns or any deadly weapon.
So I just want people to understand when I come out in support of the gun control laws I support, that people understand I don't want to take away peoples rights to sport shoot, hunt, or protect their family. What I do want is to regulate the availability of Guns and their destructive power.

When the horrible tragedy at Newton happened, the NRA and their supporters were out in force talking about how in Israel teachers are armed and that "They really know how to deal with Guns there." One Paulist acquaintance, claimed he was going to move to Israel IF the Feds "came after his guns". In response to this I wrote a diary titled: Israel to NRA and Tea Party: You have no idea what you are talking about
In that diary, I showed what were Israeli Gun Control laws, so I want to excerpt that part again:
Gun Owner Licensing 
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm License:
Applicants for a gun owner’s license in Israel are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, self-defense, hunting and sport
Minimum Age for Firearm Possession
The minimum age for gun ownership in Israel is 27 years and 21 years if served in the military
Gun Owner Background Checks
An applicant for a firearm license in Israel must pass background checks which consider health, mental and criminal records
Gun Owner Licensing Period
In Israel gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm license every 3 years
Licensing Records
In Israel, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition
A licensed firearm owner in Israel is permitted to possess a limited quantity of ammunition.
NOW this is gun control that I can completely support. I firmly believe in raising the age requirement for ownership, Full background checks, limited ammunition, licensing every three years (like driving in the U.S. sort of). I see no problem with any of this.

So let's have the real argument... because from what I see, it all comes down to is that people want to keep their guns because they are afraid that our government will turn tyrannical and impose the second coming of the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, or the Khmer Rouge.

People also have some misconception that they are going to be some heroes and valiantly stand up to whoever is oppressing them and every home is going to be "REMEMBER THE ALAMO". Well... that is a bunch of crap. Most people (including myself and I am trained to deal with this to a small degree) would be freakin' terrified to deal with this situation and most likely in real life say: "OK, here is my gun".

Could this happen in the U.S.? Yeah... it could but it is highly unlikely and honestly were it to happen, how the hell some shotgun or my Glock is going to stop it? Right... they won't.

So really, if we look at it closely, what is the gun here in most cases, but an extension of our inner desire to be tough or to not be "run over" by other people. I am not sure that is how I see it, since handling a gun does not make me feel tougher than anyone else (I am not sure I can describe how I feel but it is not "tough"), but, I do know many people who do feel as if a gun defines them (both male and female).

This is the thing... I think we need to be honest here. Why oppose any of the rules above? How do they hinder anyone from shooting, or learning to shoot? Here is another thing... If you like shooting "Assault weapons" (and I have fired M-16's and an HK Folding Stock Automatic rifle), I say no problem.. I like shooting them as well. So here is a solution, how about there be ranges that have special licenses (like in Las Vegas) where you go and can target shoot? It's all controlled, no guns leave the premises and you get to shoot as much as you like. Problem Solved.

Look, honestly, there can be very reasonable gun control and because guns are such powerful things they should be regulated and controlled. I am not sure I see the harm in that. No... I don't see the harm in that.
No, if you are that afraid of the government coming to take away your precious guns then just admit it. If you think it sounds a bit whacky and you are afraid to even tell people that, then you shouldn't have a gun - you won't be able to handle it. I like my gun because I like to shoot and it is nice to have extra protection in the house (though locked up and out of sight), just in case of an emergency but that is about it. I am not going to fight off the Black Helicopters and U.N. Troops with my pistol. Heh.

I think that the real issue is in how we see ourselves and where guns fit in that image. The thing is that the Gun is an "easy" accessory to solve problems with, it is an equalizer. You don't have to be big, or tough, or know things to have power you just have to have the will to pull a trigger. Until we understand that about ourselves this debate will rage and there will be more senseless gun violence. It really is as they say... "Guns don't kill people, People kill people... BUT... Guns sure make it a lot easier".

But in the end... I shoot, I support Gun Control. I want people to be safe and while you can't protect everyone from every harmful thing you can make it more difficult for people to be harmed. I don't see anything in Gun Control legislation that stops me from going to the range and shooting my pistol. I don't see anything unreasonable in what is being proposed.

9 comments:

  1. Volley, I appreciate what you are trying to say here, but it is too bad that you have completely dismissed the possibility of guns to oppose tyranny, and resorted to a characature of those positions that I would expect from the "lazy left", rather than from your usually thoughtful pen.

    Reasonable people who think that public ownership of guns is a deterrent to a police state are not under the illusion that private firearms will be taking down black helicopters. Rather, we realize that in the history of totalitarian regimes, 99.9% of the time they enforce their totalitarianism through secret police, and a monopoly of small scale force, not with helicopters and tanks. Just look at the situation currently in Zimbabwe - no tanks or helicopters, just government thugs with a sticks and whips and an unarmed populace. There are many other examples.

    That is how totalitarian regimes come about and survive 99% of the time, not with tanks and helicopters. And even in the case of the later, if you doubt the ability of an armed civilian population to fight off even the most modern military in the world, then how do you explain how illiterate fucktards in Iraq and Afghanistan kept the US military from achieving victory for 10 years?

    I'm not saying that armed citizens are a sure defense against tyranny, or even the best defense against the imposition of an unjust secret police state, but they are a defense, as the entire history of 20th and 21st century totalitarianism demonstrates. I think it can all be phrased with a simple question: If you found out that 100s of KKK people, or 100s of neo-nazis, or 100s of rogue US military dominionists were coming to your town, would you want to have a gun or not? If so, then don't mock people for saying this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fiz... It's not that I am "mocking" you. I am not.. BUT honestly in response to your comment.. my general answer is "Not in my opinion".

      Let's start with this...

      Rather, we realize that in the history of totalitarian regimes, 99.9% of the time they enforce their totalitarianism through secret police, and a monopoly of small scale force, not with helicopters and tanks.

      Yes and no, in regimes like Russia and China they did it with overwhelming force COUPLED with those organizations you speak of. And those organizations you speak of (secret police) have the organs of State behind them. They are organized to a degree that only a State or very well organized quasi governmental organization could be. A bunch of shooters here and there simply can't match that, and honestly would be compromised in a second flat.

      Oh and as for Zimbabwe... Actually Zimbabwe is not unarmed. They rank 106 out of 179 in terms of civilian guns for the population. That means there 73 countries approx 30% of the world that have less guns in civilian hands than Zimbabwe.

      That is how totalitarian regimes come about and survive 99% of the time, not with tanks and helicopters. And even in the case of the later, if you doubt the ability of an armed civilian population to fight off even the most modern military in the world, then how do you explain how illiterate fucktards in Iraq and Afghanistan kept the US military from achieving victory for 10 years?

      The "fucktards" in Iraq and Afghanistan who are fighting the U.S. Marines (and not quite battlefield equally) are organized into militias, and terror groups. They are fighting on their home territory against an occupying power (and know I support our mission in Afghanistan) but we are occupying them.


      This is not a bunch of people that are rolling with handguns or Single shot AR-15's. They have IED's, Stingers, RPG's, resources and supply lines with para military organizations. Are you suggesting that we as Americans need this at this time?

      As for this:

      I think it can all be phrased with a simple question: If you found out that 100s of KKK people, or 100s of neo-nazis, or 100s of rogue US military dominionists were coming to your town, would you want to have a gun or not?

      WHAT??? Where do you think we live and in what nation? What kind of example is this? There are a lot more things I would do besides having just my Glock if this went down. I mean seriously... what the hell kind of scenario is that? Do you really think this is a distinct possibility???? AND fiz, there are lots of Neo-Nazi's and Klan members out there. If you want to deal with the problem of them, you will not wait until they come in an organized military manner. Just saying.

      And this:

      Volley, I appreciate what you are trying to say here, but it is too bad that you have completely dismissed the possibility of guns to oppose tyranny, and resorted to a characature of those positions that I would expect from the "lazy left", rather than from your usually thoughtful pen.

      I am advocating gun rules straight from Israel. Are they the "lazy left"???

      Fiz... no one wants to take your guns away. But tell me what is unreasonable about what I propose? Make that argument. Remember, I am a gun owner too - and training with people that are serious professionals. Do you think after going through that, that I want to just ban guns? I just want reasonable rules. I see nothing wrong there.

      Delete
    2. No, that's the thing - I don't think that what you have proposed policy-wise is unreasonable. But I think your rhetoric was - you painted a characature of gun enthusiasts that is not accurate (in large part) but is divisive, and would not help reach compromise on this issue.

      Delete
    3. Ok... so what is unreasonable about the way I painted gun enthusiasts? I am seriously asking you this here.

      Fiz.. I have nothing against guns. In fact, I am rifle shopping now. I have a handgun, I think a rifle would be good too. Currently I am looking at a .22 rifle from Smith and Wesson that sort looks like an AR. I actually priced those as well because I have shot them and they are fun but man are they expensive. The .22 is a lot less so.

      But I do think many gun enthusiasts are not as honest as you were in your comment to me. I know some and what they say to me privately IS NOT what they say in public.

      Delete
  2. Getting weapons off the streets is laudable, and would have some effect, but the issue of gun control is a diversion that each side uses to energize and create even more division.

    The last thing our leaders want are followers they cannot control. They use all the tools so effectively to hide their ineptness and stoke the fires against the other side, no matter what the issue is, in this case gun control. The Wizard of Oz would be proud of the way society is manipulated from behind the curtain this way.

    For example, according to a recent Pew poll, only 44% of Millenials — roughly defined here as people who were born some time after 1973 — are aware that Roe v. Wade pertained to abortion. The rest had no idea.

    http://news.yahoo.com/56-millennials-no-idea-roe-v-wade-213158121.html

    Yet, so many are glued to their smart phones, connected, twittering away, and ready to glop up just how cool our top leaders are with their social media blitzes that leave the recipients dumber and less able to think.

    Gun control, which I have always supported, I see now as just another card to be played, not a panacea, and even if it succeeds the same sicknesses will prevail, from mental illness to the glorification of violence in entertainment, among other things. We should stop pretending.

    As for the 2nd Amendment, and whether an armed citizenry can take on a monolithic government, the world of asymmetrical warfare has shown clearly that it can, effectively. So on that front the diary's reasoning is suspect.

    There can and should be a balancing of interests here, but that will never happen when every matter is part of a larger political campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... while I can agree with some of what you said, I have to disagree with this:

      As for the 2nd Amendment, and whether an armed citizenry can take on a monolithic government, the world of asymmetrical warfare has shown clearly that it can, effectively. So on that front the diary's reasoning is suspect.

      Certainly, an armed citizenry can give an occupying power headaches, there is a lot more to effective resistance than simply being armed. The citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan resisting (and I hate to use that word) the U.S. are organized into para military militia's and have use of IED's, RPG's the occasional Stinger, and other forms of heavy weaponry. A bunch of "shooters" with unmodified AR's, HK's and the rest would not be nearly as effective.

      BUT even more so, this is the U.S. and as of yet (and for the foreseeable future) our situation is far different from the world that Iraq and Afghanistan occupy. I don't see that sort of thing happening in the U.S. at this time.

      This...

      There can and should be a balancing of interests here, but that will never happen when every matter is part of a larger political campaign.

      May be true, however, is there really a larger campaign in the desire for sensible gun regulation? While there are parts of BOTH parties engaged in this, I think this is an issue that can and should cross party lines. Remember 8 in 10 Americans support more extensive background checks. Is the side asking for that being unreasonable? I would say "no".

      Getting weapons off the streets is laudable, and would have some effect, but the issue of gun control is a diversion that each side uses to energize and create even more division.

      I would say rather than look at it as a diversionary issue, it is an issue that we should all focus on and as the President says... "Let's pass legislation on what we agree on, and discuss what we don't". BUT to do that, advocates such as the NRA have to be able to recognize that they indeed do need to address this issue.

      Delete
  3. (livosh1)
    Good diary, volley. Apologists for the NRA are total whack-jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul in San FranciscoJanuary 31, 2013 at 6:48 PM

    I've never fired a gun in my life. I will soon, though, since I bought a voucher for a 4-hour firearm instruction seminar a while ago, before Newtown, thinking it would be fun. And it will be, but I'm not like those idiots that think we should arm teachers, or that if I carry my gun to the movies, I'll do anything other than shoot (a) myself, or (b) some other terrified moviegoer, in between pissing my pants while trying to crawl deeper under the seats. The new Stallone action film is entitled "Bullet to the Head." These jokes just write themselves, I tell you.

    Most of the people who hide behind the Second Amendment haven't a clue what it means, or where it came from. They conveniently overlook the bit about a well-ordered militia, and the historical context that the amendment was passed during a time in which this country had no standing army. Being able to call farmers up to form a militia was our only means of defense during a time when our nation was new, our enterprise was fragile and largely untested, and our parent country, England, was more than willing to fight to take us back. Those days are long gone, the context has changed greatly. Now we have a standing army, the most powerful in history, and your Glocks and AR-15s won't do you a bit of good against Russian fighter jets or CIA drones equipped with Hellfire missiles. Indeed, modern aircraft and artillery can fire weapons accurately at you from so far away, you can't hear them and won't even know they are there. A helluva lot of good that pistol with 30 meter accuracy will do you against a missile fired from 3 miles away. But hey, take your best shot.

    I completely agree with VB's ideas about adopting some of Israel's gun control mechanisms. They are sensible, and every little bit helps. I'd go even farther. I'd tell the Second Amendment freaknuts that if they want to carry modern firearms, they should join the National Guard or the Army, and they can do it within the bounds of their military service. Well-ordered militia, remember? Serve your frigging country. If they don't want the inconvenience of that, they can carry the kinds of weapons that were in existence at the time the Second Amendment was passed, namely, muskets that fire a single shot have then have to be reloaded, laboriously. Or, since the Second Amendment never specifically mentions firearms, they can carry cudgels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh... a pistol with 30 Meters accuracy... Not mine (or it could be the shooter). ;-)

      To be serious for a minute, well said Paul. I think your discussion of the Second Amendment is important. In my opinion we really have to take a long look at it and read outside documents from the framers to see what they really intended to get some correct context.

      As for your shooting class - you will enjoy it. Shooting is fun but understand that the classes are more about understanding the weapon and safely handling it. THAT is what will make the difference.

      Delete