33
'introduction'
let me begin by saying that this started as a comment on oliverfrenchie's most recent blog, www.planetminecraft.com/blog/tragedy---a-thoughtful-blog/
but it got kinda long for a comment, so i decided to put my thoughts in a blog.
this blog will be about the pros and cons of controlling access to firearms.
note: i am a definite liberal, but i am by no means unconditionally opposed to gun ownership and use. (i love halo <3)
'history of guns: development and uses'
to start, i'm kinda torn on gun control. in constitutional days, guns were a part of life and getting food. (as well as self-defense) now, there's a grocery store within 10=20 miles of mostly any home in the First World. not to mention that yesteryear's guns were simple one-shot affairs, and their lethality was greatly curbed.
with today's assault weapons (AKs, ARs, etc.) killing a large number of people is an easy task and doesn't require much skill on the part of the murderer. there is NO POINT to these guns, (besides self-defense) because most of them are illegal to hunt with and impractical while hunting. in addition there are silencers, suppressors, and high-cap mags which increase killing potential. (thankfully, access to these is limited.)
'self-defense'
as self-defense, however, guns are (imo) an absolute necessity. without firearms, the ability to defend one's-self would be determined by physical strength (strangulation,stabbing, bow-and-arrow), which normally gives advantage to males, who are typically more violent in the first place. anyone with proper training can use a gun, leveling the playing field. the only question is whether more lives will be spared by allowing guns (leading to shootings, etc. but allowing more effective self-defense) or by banning them altogether (resulting in more physical violence and limiting a person's capacity to defend themselves.)
'tossing out dictators'
another application of guns is for the purpose of overthrowing totalitarian governments. normally, though, this can be done by regular legislative processes, unless the case in point is a complete coup d'etat by a radical party or military group. however, that can be quickly counteracted by civilians with firearms. nonetheless, this is not a commonplace occurrence in the First World (a counterexample of this is areas like the Middle East and North Africa, where territorials boundaries fluctuate and leadership changes hands fairly often.) ownership of a gun, in my mind, symbolizes an extent of control over one's own destiny. so, in North America, there is little need of a gun for the purpose of defying a government that does not exist to serve its People.
'out of the hands of the people'
a commonly-made pro-gun argument is this: by outlawing/ restricting handguns and automatic weapons, it would only affect organized crime and not domestic violence (some of the more stubborn conservatives will contend that gun ownership does not correlate to violence in any way, shape, or form.) the reason behind this argument is that people who make crime their business (think: mafia, etc.) will be able to acquire illegal weapons simply because they operate outside the boundaries of the law. to counteract this, either the production of guns must be strictly regulated, or border control must be amped up considerably to discourage smuggling. neither of these options would be perfect, or even 100% effective. a possible solution would be to allow the government to acquire gun manufacturers and control the distribution of firearms. this would decrease the military budget and reduce access to illegal weapons by both career criminals AND everyday civilians.
thank you for reading, i strongly encourage you to discuss your thoughts
(both about gun politics and my blog) in the comments below.
a note: when i started writing this, oliverfrenchie's blog was not on the pop reel,
(at this point i don't even know if it will be) so i am not riding anybody's coattails,
thank you very much.
additional note: originally i misquoted the author of the blog that inspired me to write this.
sorry for any confusion, and thanks to TheArtist, who pointed out my misattribution.
let me begin by saying that this started as a comment on oliverfrenchie's most recent blog, www.planetminecraft.com/blog/tragedy---a-thoughtful-blog/
but it got kinda long for a comment, so i decided to put my thoughts in a blog.
this blog will be about the pros and cons of controlling access to firearms.
note: i am a definite liberal, but i am by no means unconditionally opposed to gun ownership and use. (i love halo <3)
'history of guns: development and uses'
to start, i'm kinda torn on gun control. in constitutional days, guns were a part of life and getting food. (as well as self-defense) now, there's a grocery store within 10=20 miles of mostly any home in the First World. not to mention that yesteryear's guns were simple one-shot affairs, and their lethality was greatly curbed.
with today's assault weapons (AKs, ARs, etc.) killing a large number of people is an easy task and doesn't require much skill on the part of the murderer. there is NO POINT to these guns, (besides self-defense) because most of them are illegal to hunt with and impractical while hunting. in addition there are silencers, suppressors, and high-cap mags which increase killing potential. (thankfully, access to these is limited.)
'self-defense'
as self-defense, however, guns are (imo) an absolute necessity. without firearms, the ability to defend one's-self would be determined by physical strength (strangulation,stabbing, bow-and-arrow), which normally gives advantage to males, who are typically more violent in the first place. anyone with proper training can use a gun, leveling the playing field. the only question is whether more lives will be spared by allowing guns (leading to shootings, etc. but allowing more effective self-defense) or by banning them altogether (resulting in more physical violence and limiting a person's capacity to defend themselves.)
'tossing out dictators'
another application of guns is for the purpose of overthrowing totalitarian governments. normally, though, this can be done by regular legislative processes, unless the case in point is a complete coup d'etat by a radical party or military group. however, that can be quickly counteracted by civilians with firearms. nonetheless, this is not a commonplace occurrence in the First World (a counterexample of this is areas like the Middle East and North Africa, where territorials boundaries fluctuate and leadership changes hands fairly often.) ownership of a gun, in my mind, symbolizes an extent of control over one's own destiny. so, in North America, there is little need of a gun for the purpose of defying a government that does not exist to serve its People.
'out of the hands of the people'
a commonly-made pro-gun argument is this: by outlawing/ restricting handguns and automatic weapons, it would only affect organized crime and not domestic violence (some of the more stubborn conservatives will contend that gun ownership does not correlate to violence in any way, shape, or form.) the reason behind this argument is that people who make crime their business (think: mafia, etc.) will be able to acquire illegal weapons simply because they operate outside the boundaries of the law. to counteract this, either the production of guns must be strictly regulated, or border control must be amped up considerably to discourage smuggling. neither of these options would be perfect, or even 100% effective. a possible solution would be to allow the government to acquire gun manufacturers and control the distribution of firearms. this would decrease the military budget and reduce access to illegal weapons by both career criminals AND everyday civilians.
thank you for reading, i strongly encourage you to discuss your thoughts
(both about gun politics and my blog) in the comments below.
a note: when i started writing this, oliverfrenchie's blog was not on the pop reel,
(at this point i don't even know if it will be) so i am not riding anybody's coattails,
thank you very much.
additional note: originally i misquoted the author of the blog that inspired me to write this.
sorry for any confusion, and thanks to TheArtist, who pointed out my misattribution.
| Credit | oliverfrenchie, theartist |
| Tags |
tools/tracking
1755855
6
gun-control-a-response-to-greytophers-tragedy-a-thoughtful-blog
Carrotthepig
MistFaller
Cooeymnmn
trd456
DADred
Weirdness
ScotsMiser
MaximusPrime23
Henry04alcalino
The Gamers Club
KEIKYU production
minecraftwikipt
Create an account or sign in to comment.
Just some stuff to think about.
~Bloodbow
perhaps i didn't quite make myself clear :)
(P.S.: the NRA blamed violent entertainment like CoD and Halo for school shootings and mass killings. i would disagree.)
The problem arises when you consider how guns affect everyone around us. People should be free to do anything that doesn't affect other people adversely. But I'm fully convinced that banning guns wouldn't solve anything. People can get their hands on anything these days. A silly law can't stop them.
there's something on the tip of my tongue... sandy beach? no...
captain hook? no, that's not it either...
Lol, re-reading what I said, I can see how contradictory I sounded! Haha! Major fail on my part. XD
My main point is just that even if banning guns will in theory prevent things like this from happening, which it won't, banning them would just render each and every individual one step less in power than the government. And the government shouldn't be in power.
i will fix that immediately.