dagblog - Comments for "National Rifle Association Meeting -- We're Under Attack -- Our Response -- Talking Points"

I wasn't suggesting that you,

wws — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:57:03 +0000

I wasn't suggesting that you, personally, have been or are shrugging, Donal; I was speaking of general avoidance of the issue by lots and lots of people. Opposing concealed carry permitting is certainly an immediate, practical cause on which great numbers of people will presumably agree. It's a start.

I haven't been shrugging,

Donal — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:24:57 +0000

In reply to I agree that it is

I haven't been shrugging, I've been writing about my sense that pushing for open carry and more gun ownership is misguided.

I agree that it is

wws — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:21:30 +0000

In reply to 1) Yes, really. We have the

I agree that it is unrealistic to think that we can eliminate all guns -- at least in our lifetime, and perhaps for generations to come. But if we say and do nothing, if we shrug our shoulders and turn away from the issue, isn't the "realistic" outcome more carnage caused by more people having and depending on guns as a means of settling problems?

It's fine if you don't agree,

we are stardust — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:29:00 +0000

In reply to Stardust -- I can't say I

It's fine if you don't agree, wws, but I did also mention hunger-hunting. So there's that. The only reason I wrote this at all is because so many people equate 'guns' to 'handguns', and assume if you own a gun, you love it. Believe me, many gun owners scare me, and those in my neighborhood who shoot at targets with semi-automatics after dark make me a little crazy. But it turns out, it's legal here, even to the sheriff's dismay.

I'll leave it at that, I guess, rather than talking about the sometimes desirability of hunting for food, and overpopulation of species due to the eradication of natural predators, etc., lest you might want to categorize me as a gun-lover. ;o)

1) Yes, really. We have the

Donal — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:06:05 +0000

In reply to I'm surprised to learn you

1) Yes, really. We have the right to bear arms, and I don't discard rights too easily.

2) Innocent people can and do die without guns, too. Just on tonight's news some woman had two pistols at home and used them to repel a man with an AK-47 from in front of her home. Without those pistols, she'd probably be dead now.

2a) I don't like that people get killed, period.

2b) We rent in a fairly safe area. I do believe that an alarm is a prerequisite for home defense, if only to avoid panicked shooting.

I'm sorry we disagree, but I think my position is fairly moderate. I consider people that think we can either eliminate all guns or that we should arm everyone to be unrealistic.

I've always wondered why

artappraiser — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:36:58 +0000

In reply to Interesting thoughts here,

I've always wondered why guns, as dangerous as they are, are the one thing that so many people want to exempt.

Because far more propose outlawing all ownerhsip of all fireams than propose outlawing all driving of automobiles.

A side thought: the whole macho thing that goes along with fireams which many of them enjoy, including the responsible ones, ironically works against them there. I do happen to think they should fear wimmins being in charge of the world, for despite the Sarah Palin outliers, I believe most feminine-type minds don't get the extreme appeal.

Back to topic. I think it's the same with as with many lobbying causes. If there was somone with the power and money to grow a lobbying group as powerful as the NRA that still promoted the right to own but was less crazy than them about regulation, I think many more would support it.

Look at someone like Guiliani, many gun loving types don't seem to hate him for being pro-regulation, rather they like his tough law and order talk. There is a disconnect with the right wing crazies within the NRA, the ones where when you bring up law and order they have to come up wih "if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them." like their local police would welcome seeing every hot head in town running around with guns, r-r-r-ight. Hellooo, law and order does not mean totally unregulated mass ownership and carry of all firearms, it means the sheriff making the cowboys hang their guns up at his office before they head over to the saloon. The moderates fear the slippery slope should anti-all-guns crazies get their way and stand with the NRA because there isn't a equally strong voice to support their view.

Like with a lot of things we're talking about these days, stopping the hate rhetoric (gun owners hating peaceniks and peaceniks hating gun owners) might do a lot of good. After all, many of us probably know examples of the two different types (gun-lovers and gun haters) who have managed to stay married to each other.

Stardust -- I can't say I

wws — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:21:54 +0000

In reply to I don't claim to be

Stardust -- I can't say I agree with you, without thinking about it more carefully, but I can say that the circumstance you cite of "mercy killing" injured animals does not fit the categories Donal and I have been discussing -- those of "protection, hunting and recreation." Putting an animal out of its agony is, I suppose, justifiable if the nearest vet/ranger is miles away and unlikely to arrive in time to be helpful to man or beast.

So, imo, what you have cited, then, is more a tangent than a consideration of what is at issue to the general population -- whether any particular person is pro or con gun control.

I'm surprised to learn you

wws — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:05:00 +0000

In reply to I don't actually own a

I'm surprised to learn you don't own a gun -- given the views you've expressed more than once -- but I'm really glad you don't. Not only because every person who owns a gun represents a potential tragedy (of which you gave an example, yourself) but more particularly because there is, imo, an inherent disconnect between that up-close-and-personal recitation of potential mayhem and saying that:

1) you don't see any value in citizens disarming themselves (really? after the experience your wife had in real life?); and,

2) you don't see anything wrong with "responsible people owning firearms for defense and hunting" (both circumstances in which innocent people can and do die) .... but you object (by cringing) to "people plinking round after round as recreation" ...likening that practice to "fuel wasted in auto racing."

Er, ummm, Donal? Are you saying, then, that:

a) a profligate waste of bullets (on say, clay pigeons) is, actually, a "green" concern, consistent with your worry over wasted gasoline ..... and that that is, to you, a greater worry than real people being "wasted"? For, unless I am missing something, that is what you just implied and maybe said outright. And,

b) If you are really worried about personal security for yourself and your family, does your house have an armed alarm? Do you have a reinforced closet designated as a "safe" room in which you keep a cell phone programmed for 911? Do you have, if all else fails, a tranquilizer dart gun? Or, as a last resort, a taser? Because all of these precautions, Donal -- as over the top as they may be seen -- are less potentially lethal than owning a gun for "protection."

Americans frequently talk about what principles are worth dying for. Much less frequently -- if at all -- do we talk about what principles are worth killing for. Maybe thatl's why we have become a nation of killers?

I don't claim to be

we are stardust — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:00:55 +0000

In reply to Donal:I personally know you

I don't claim to be particularly peaceful, as I can't always control my thoughts or my dreams, but as I said below, we own a rifle. It's only been used to kill suffering animals, especially deer, who periodically get tangled in fences. They often break limbs struggling to get out, or bleed profusely, or get struck by cars n the road, but not killed outright. I used to have nightmares that I'd have to use my Swiss Army knife to cut their jugulars to hasten their deaths.

Over the years, we've extricated many deer and a few Great-horned owls from wire-fence entangling, but the rifle can be a valuable tool when that's not possible. Some animals hurt you when you try to release them. Bears are a big concern, too, in years where the acorns and berries in the mountains are scarce, they come down to raid anything edible. They are powerful; one took his paw and took the hasp and lock and several boards off a shed that held our recyclables. Another tore right through the thick lid of a trash barrel we stored bird seed in. Some enter houses at will; seriously. You might not get to a gun, but then again, you might. All in all, I'd rather not be a bear's meal.

I would have to honestly say that although we have resident deer here that have names by now, if we were hungry enough, i can at least imagine that I could shoot one; my spouse, too. The DOW has so mismanaged the herds, there are too many for the land to support, really, and few predators, save for the odd and magnificent mountain lion.

Neither of us would shoot a person who came to steal from us, even the food we have stashed for hard times; I'd rather be given a chance to share with them. (It's a Mormon canyon we live in, so food stores are common, and commonly known to townspeople.)

I don't guess I think that the world will be safer if we give up our gun; it's stashed safely, and even though we respect it, but don't particularly care for it, we'll keep it. Just in case. I'll even promise not to shoot Tom deLay if he stops by. ;o)

I don't actually own a

Donal — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:13:41 +0000

In reply to Donal:I personally know you

I don't actually own a firearm. I have thought about getting one but there are several complications. First, this city requires a long, expensive and by no means certain permit process. Second, I have no expertise with shooting, and have no interest in driving to the countryside to find a shooting range. Third, both public transit and my employers object to the carrying of weapons. So even if I could get a gun here, I could only keep it at home for the unlikely event that someone breaks in while I am home.

I can't even do that, though, because my wife had a bad experience with a gun in her first marriage. Her husband was a veteran and much handier with tools and machinery than I am. He was tinkering with a rifle in the house, and accidentally discharged it into the floor just after she walked past him. The bullet missed her and struck just below where her sister and brother-in-law were sitting. So she has banned guns in the house. I can be very absent-minded, so I'd probably be even more dangerous than he was.

But I don't see any value in citizens symbolically disarming themselves. If I had a safe place to keep it, and a gun range handy, and time to practice, I'd probably buy a .22 revolver and learn to shoot. While most of us no longer live in the wilderness, we are not absolutely safe, and I don't object to responsible people owning firearms for defense or hunting. I do cringe when I see people plinking round after round as recreation, but then I also cringe at the fuel wasted in auto racing.

While there are rural places where openly carrying guns makes sense, I do object to the idea that every community must legislate open carry laws. That seems to me to be asking that society return to being a wilderness, or an openly armed camp, which would be great for arms dealers but tragic for the rest of us.