Gun Control
CRANKY OPINION RE-RUN
The following is the opinion of a cranky old man with limited knowledge on the topic opined. Opposing opinions are welcome but may be ignored. Mean spirited comments may be deleted, As always, no name calling and that means you, you big stupid head!
Cranky Old Man does not own a gun, has never owned a gun, and has never even fired a gun. Guns scare me. I don’t want to hunt; I have no interest in target shooting, and don’t believe I need a gun for protection. If I had a gun, the only time it would be fired it would likely be an unfortunate accident. I don’t like guns.
I do not object to hunting. Many people have a genetic urge to kill animals and fill their freezer with game. I have eaten venison…it is delicious when prepared correctly. I have no objection to people culling the deer herd by gun rather than culling it myself with the front bumper of my car.
Many people enjoy target shooting and or skeet shooting. I do not wish to deprive these people of their sport. I like to bowl. I would be upset if laws were passed that take away my bowling ball just because some nut killed people by dropping bowling balls off a highway overpass.
If I lived in a remote area where visitors were rare, I would own a gun. I would greet every car that came down my dusty country road with a smile, a wave, and a loaded shotgun.
Still, I believe we need stronger gun regulation in this country. Purchasing guns should not be easy. People should have a license to buy a gun. The gun buying license should require some psychological testing. At a minimum, people with crazy eyes should be disqualified (come on, you know what I mean!)
Do NOT sell guns to these people!
There should be a written test and a demonstration to prove the candidate is knowledgeable in gun use and gun safety.
The gun purchase license should be expensive, and should need to be renewed periodically.
Now the arguments against gun restriction:
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Yes, but guns do make it easier and do increase productivity.
Only the criminals will have guns.
Well the criminals and the people that clear all the reasonable gun law restrictions. Oh yeah, and the police.
The second amendment protects us from Government abuse.
You got me there, that AK 47 will really come in real handy against
government tanks.
Listen; do we really need assault weapons to kill a deer? Do we need rapid fire heavy ammo to shoot at targets? Does anyone need an Uzi for protection?
It is true that most of the mass murders in our recent history were perpetrated with guns that were either legally obtained or stolen and gun regulations may not have stopped these crimes. However, all the stories have not been reported.
In April 2002, Cecil Plotnick went into a gun shop in Seattle with the intent of purchasing several handguns and then driving to the nearest mall and killing as many people as he could. When told he had to wait for a background check he changed his mind and bought a PlayStation 3 instead.
In June 2007, John "Bubba” Beady tried to buy a high-power rifle and several boxes of ammo at “Ralph’s Burgers and Guns” café in Lacy Arkansas. Ralph questioned him as to why he wanted so much ammo and Bubba responded, “To kill a whole bunch of people.” When Ralph told Bubba he did not sell ammo that was to be used to kill people, Bubba went bowling.
The stories of Cecil, Bubba and hundreds of other similar stories never made the evening news. Gun legislation that saves lives is not news. Bad shit that never happens is hard to demonstrate statistically.
If drunk driving was legal, wouldn't the roads be less safe? If pilots required no training would you be nervous about flying? If anyone could just hang up a shingle and call himself Doc, who would you go to when you were sick?
People do drive drunk. Idiots do fly and crash planes. Charlatans do imitate doctors. Does that mean we should not have laws and regulations? Laws and regulations limit bad shit. They do not eliminate bad shit but they do reduce and restrict it.
Stricter gun regulations will not eliminate random mass murders, but it will stop some…we just won’t know about them ...ah...cause they didn't happen.
The preceding was the opinion of a cranky old man and not necessarily that of management...Mrs. Cranky.
Ralph's Burgers and Guns???
ReplyDeleteA place that sells burgers also sells guns.
what the hell kinda country you living in there?
Burgers and fries, okay. Add soda, still okay. But guns at a burger place just boggles the mind. I hope they don't hand them out with the happy meals.
It is a huge problem. Guns are banned in the UK though some lunatics manage to get them. Instead of trying to get a gun the youth of today opt for knives which, as you can guess, is just as lethal. 17 stab deaths already this year, according to today's news.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. My husband always argues that if a crazy person is that determined, he will get a gun somehow. But it's ridiculous that we don't make it difficult, AT ALL!
ReplyDeleteI agreed the first time around and nothing has changed. Because nothing has changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Cranky, that something needs to be done to reduce gun violence. I agree a class teaching gun use and safety should be required before you can buy a gun. (Ironically, there is a group today who regularly holds such classes...it's the NRA. And for the record, I'm NOT a member of the NRA.) The class should culminate with a written test, for sure.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I don't have much faith in psychologists/psychiatrists to evaluate someone's mental health in a short visit. I think playing "20 questions" for half an hour would simply give us a false sense of security. Unless they're babbling incoherently and twitching, or have a swastika tattooed on their forehead, I think it would be pretty easy for someone to bamboozle a shrink. I think it takes long term observation of a person to determine their mental state, which will likely be too late to stop the massacre they're trying to prevent.
You say a gun ownership should be expensive and renewed regularly. Definitely make it renewable, but it can't be expensive. An expensive license for pretty much anything was smacked down by the SCOTUS back in the '60's when it said a Poll Tax (used in the South to keep blacks from voting if they couldn't pay the tax) discriminated against the poor.
The difference between imposing strict licensing and regulation on gun ownership and driving or flying or practicing medicine is that those others are not a "Right" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Many obvious possible responses to gun violence are simply non-starters. IMO one thing we can legally do that has already passed court muster is expand and improve the background check system. I've heard 40% of all guns are bought/sold without ANY checks at all. Some are innocent "estate sale' type situations, but others are simply the gun show loophole of an individual selling his "private collection" (that he's owned for 10 minutes) to anyone with a handful of cash, no questions asked. Also, too many jurisdictions don't report people who have been dishonorably discharged from the military (such as the Texas church shooter), have restraining orders against them, have been committed voluntarily or involuntarily for mental issues, etc, and I would add kids who have been expelled from school after exhibiting violent tendencies. A background check is of no use if disqualifying information is never added to the database in the first place.
I can't understand how prohibiting new sales of AR-15's would accomplish much as there are already tens of millions of semi-automatic guns out there right now. (And it wouldn't just be AR-15's, but civilian versions of AK-47's, Ruger Mini-14's, and legacy guns going all the way back to WWII.)
We SHOULD lock up convicted felons who are found in possession of guns they are prohibited from having, but we won't as it would cost too much to lock them all up. We SHOULD ante up the cost to treat and even hospitalize the mentally ill, but we won't as it would cost too much to treat them all. (Notice how boldly we talk until we taxpayers realize how much a fix, to anything, would cost?)
So basically, IMO our best chance to do anything meaningful to get a handle on gun violence is to concentrate on giving teeth to our currently weak background check system. And how about if we get PAC's and special/corporate interest money out of politics? And how about if we review our "Tax Exempt" organization guidelines? That is a REAL farce that needs to be addressed.
Sorry to be so long winded.
I agree with your opinions on this issue. Our family does have guns but we're not hunters. We live in a rural area and I not only know where the shotgun is kept, I know how to use it. I'm actually the best shot in the family..no brag, just fact. Anyway, besides gun control we need to look at the social and medical issues. Are people with mental health problems getting help? Are the meds used for mental health problems causing problems? What about social media, violent video games, etc, etc...No easy answers. But we need to start some place. We can keep asking folks to pray for the school shooting victims just don't let prayers be said in the schools. That would be offensive I guess..
ReplyDeleteChicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. I'm not seeing that working very well. This is a tough issue to deal with and the existing laws should be looked at closely.
ReplyDeleteHave a fabulous day, Joe. ☺
I wonder how tough gun laws in Chicago has helped to increase crime in that city. Perhaps as bad as it is, it would be worse if anyone could just walk into the Supermarket and buy an uzi and amo.
DeleteHaving a gun in the house is an invitation to tragedy. Brilliant post Joeh...I wish more people thought the way you do.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you Joeh and I am a gun owner. So far we haven't even tried to make it harder to get an automatic weapon and I have yet to rationalize why such a gun is necessary for anyone who isn't a soldier or in law enforcement. They have one purpose, to kill people. It hasn't been that long ago that Walmart quit selling them.
ReplyDeleteThis is an extremely difficult issue, but I do agree with your opinion on it, there is no need in my mind for any assault weapons, of any kind, none whatsoever...you don't need any kind of automatic weapon to hunt with, skeet shoot, or target shoot, if you are that bad of a shot to where you need rapid fire to hit your target then you don't need a weapon at all. I don't care if it's a hand gun, long gun, shot gun, Pellet gun, there needs to be an age limit to buy it, no one should be selling guns to kids...
ReplyDeleteNow on the other side I respect the right to own a gun for hunting, target shooting or protection, but there has to be some way for us to make sure that there are no military style assault type rapid fire maximum load clipped weapons of mass destruction sold legally to teenagers anymore, come on now there has to be some common sense out there somewhere.
I don't know why people are against stronger gun laws. If you're a sane responsible gun owner you don't have anything to worry about. I don't think anyone needs a semi automatic weapon though. You don't need that for hunting or for protection.
ReplyDeleteRural area here. We have guns. We're keeping them. The hardest guns to get were the legal ones, with a waiting period, and paperwork needing character references. The easiest were those Hick bought from people he knew at work, or at the auction, or traded a 4-wheeler for. People who want guns will find a way to get them.
ReplyDeleteWe need reasonable regulations. The problem is you won't get people to agree on what and how.
ReplyDeleteOur current laws are incomplete but there is no fix under our current system. Zero, zip, nada. We don't even effectively enforce the laws already on the books and we certainly do not keep effective tabs on those at highest rick of mass murder. Reacting with new laws based on this latest case would be nuts, he was known and reported via multiple avenues and the laws and safeguards that should have been triggered simply yawned and turned the other way. And this was not the first case where that was true. There could have been additional laws in place but to what end if the enforcement agencies all fail?
ReplyDeleteAgree with you 100%.
ReplyDelete