I'm unable to write this in a form that doesn't sound like an attack. But, I'll say up front that is not my root intention. I'm just not capable of writing in a whimsical or jovial style, I guess. (And certainly not within your preferred word limits.
)
Try to understand I don't suspect you of villainy. But, I can't resist arguing with those that favor inequality (or denial) toward gun ownership.
I'm trying to understand how I could be anti-gun if I'm a gun owner?
Well, I'm trying to decide which of these apply. Maybe you can help?
ELITISTSMany of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for the other nine amendments.
AUTHORITARIANSAnother type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy and they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.
Like Mark, I've owned guns since I was a kid, and even though I'm not a regular shooter any more, I still enjoy occasionally taking them to the range (especially one of my old black powder guns that has been in my family for well over 100 years) to punch holes in paper targets, I just don't live in a culture where I think I need a gun just to survive.
I'm genuinely happy for you. We could probably have fun going out to the range. But, I wonder when your population increases to the equivalent density as the US, whether it will remain non-violent in certain areas? Even the US has many (most) places where violence is quite rare. But, evil, desperate, or insane people know no boundaries, and can visit at any time (more prevalent during natural disaster scenarios). You don't think it wise to be properly prepared for the possibility?
I was not brought up with guns or training as a child. It was ingrained at an early age that guns were evil and I was NEVER allowed to become in any way familiar with them. Archery was also prohibited. As such, I adopted the ideology that guns were evil and that all of them should be removed from the face of the earth so that no one could be hurt by them. In 1968, the Navy allowed me to fire ten rounds at a practice target, under the guise of "training". But, it wasn't until my late twenties, while researching wilderness survival techniques, that I found guns as a useful and beneficial tool. And, while researching this quite useful tool (an AR7, btw), I also learned that previously ingrained notions and ideology about "evil" guns were proven invalid. To this day, I still have no desire to harm another, by fists or by weapon, against another individual unless that is my only hope of survival. I also know, that to this day, there is no valid reason to deny my access to any weapon out of fear of harming others.
I think you were implying that I'm one of these people who think that I should be allowed to own a gun but nobody else should, but that's not true either, I couldn't care less how many responsible gun owners there are out there, good luck to them, if they enjoy their hobby responsibly, more power to them.
Then why does it appear you are supporting more restrictive gun laws limiting access beyond what now exists? How should it be decided who can have them and who cannot, beyond the current legislation you seem to find inadequate?
It's the nuts who disrespect their armed forces and don't trust their police, and use the argument that everyone is insane so everyone should arm themselves against each other, that should never be allowed to own a gun.
[/quote]
Didn't I mention that some will assign derangement onto others whether there is basis, or not? Why yes, I did.
The fact is, that ALL of us are either now mentally unstable (as defined by someone else), or can be made unstable by external influences, (or made to appear unstable to someone else by selecting an arranged data set).
On queue, suddenly you are the norm for the definition of sane, and anyone that disagrees with your sensibilities is a nut. Totally ignoring the very real fact that there are those that become insane due to an unfair society or conditions that are reasoned as insurmountable.
Did you just prove my point?
However, I will admit I likely mis-worded the statement which should have included the possibility that many of us are sane within the societal norms as we now understand it.
Anyone can be driven insane, particularly when cornered into an untenable situation, yet some still function unnoticed in society (even elected). Last I checked, all the military and police personnel in control are human, and therefore subject to all human conditions and frailties, an extra stripe on their arm or insignia on their shoulder notwithstanding.
For the record, I do respect the capabilities of the armed forces, as well as the police, as well as the many good things they do. I just have reservations about a non-conscripted army doing what is best for the country's population while performing actions within that same country, when "under orders". I have limited trust in the police, too, just not absolute, and certainly not when those at the top of the command hierarchy decide to "take control" of individuals unimportant to protect. The police in this country have the self preservation attitude that you are guilty until proven innocent. Not a cop? Then you are not one of us and therefore a criminal until a court says otherwise. They will use anything they can against you, as the opportunity arises, to prove they are not wrong. Best to appear invisible, even though I'm more likely to help them than hurt them.
How should your government decide?
Certainly
NOT by claiming everyone is guilty until proven innocent. (Prove you are sane by our standards, or become restricted.)
This country was formed under the belief that individual rights are ABOVE the rights of government UNTIL the rights of other individuals are infringed.
If you break laws and thereby prove yourself a danger to others, then you are restricted (if caught, of course) by government.
You still haven't said how you wish to apply your "fair ownership practices" to the public at large. Why is that, Terry?I agree with you that simply owning a gun does not guarantee a favorable outcome with an evil encounter. And certainly, the opposite outcome is possible. But, I favor the fighting chance, rather than just submitting as a victim.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
William Burroughs
Poll