LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
I'm trying to keep out of this as I know you guys and gals can get annoyed at we Brits poking our noses in, but....
There really dont seem to be any compelling arguments either for the banning of, or permitting of, private firearms. We can go round and round all day on the merits and demerits, we can bring up personal anecdotes and statistics on all sides, each time these being countered in equal terms by our opponents.
But, in the US you have a constitutional right. Its incorporated in the basis of the country. There can then be no argument for banning them, however good any reason is that might be advanced in that cause. The default position is that everyone is allowed to have a gun, so the issue then becomes control over who is not permitted them, and on what grounds.
We can then argue all day about ages, levels of training, wealth to acquire, criminal records, psychological defects and many more reasons besides, as to why certain individuals might be forbidden legal access to guns. We could likely agree that children shouldnt have guns - though some kids are more mature than many adults, we could likely agree that proper training is a must - but who supervises this and sets the minimum standard? We could likely agree that wealth, status or position should not be any arbiter of legal acquisition above normal pricing mechanisms - being rich or poor does not denote anything more than wealth or the absence thereof, we could likely agree that a criminal record should preclude - but if the offence is not one involving firearms or violence, should it? We could likely agree that psychological defect or illness should be a contra-indication, but what constitutes such a defect or illness is open to debate and varies from time to time; I'm psychotically ill with an identity disorder right now, according to the profession for instance, though new research indicates I might not be - and either way I'm not exactly dangerous.
Aside from all this though, there remains the uncomfortable fact that even if we were to control for all these factors and any others that could be thought up, guns are available, freely and totally illegally, to anyone who knows where to get them and has the money to pay for them. This then pretty much negates any form of control that we might place on their acquisition, apart from in relation to those who are law abiding in the first place and would therefore obey the controls!
Notwithstanding that, I have yet to hear one rational argument from anyone, as to why someone like me, a law abiding citizen should not have access to a gun, if I want one. I've said it before, but if I wanted to go on a killing spree, a gun would be my last choice of weapon. For me, I want one because I find nothing more cathartic than blowing holes in things and making a lot of noise in doing so. Certainly I'd kill in self defence, but I'd do that with or without a gun - a sword kills just as well as a gun in the right hands, even a biro will do the job though I doubt I'm up to that anymore!
Given then, that any psychopath or sociopath with the money can obtain a gun, regardless of criminal record, and especially regardless of any controls or laws or whatever are in place, and that such a person is more likely than most to embark on a killing spree, it would seem foolish in the extreme to think that he/she could be prevented from doing so by anything other than lethal force applied to them in return. The question then becomes, who exactly is legally qualified under the controls to apply that lethal force?
Which brings me to the debate on here last week about the recruitment, training and discipline of US police forces, which by all accounts in that thread are not of a level which makes many feel comfortable about their actions, brave though these officers obviously are to be out there in the first place. If we are to rely utterly on the police to prevent killing sprees then we are clearly in error - for killing sprees happen regardless. If we are to rely utterly on the police to bring killing sprees to an end quickly then we are clearly in error - the death tolls in such instances indicate that the police arrive too late however quickly they are on site, to prevent multiple fatalities. Rather it becomes the case that a person or persons already on site, suitably selected, trained and approved (through a proper system of gun control perhaps), would be better placed to resolve such incidents in the first instance - do we wait for an ambulance to arrive in the case of an injury or do we have first aiders on hand, do we wait for the fire service or do we use the fire extinguishers ourselves? Why then should we not have a similar situation in the case of crime, and especially a killing spree?
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
RE: Gun Control And Tragedy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread