- 06 Jan 2018 02:16
#14877060
OK. I know you want to argue about my "immoral" comment. I don't. Matters of morality are rarely resolved by argument.
That said. I oppose the private ownership of silencers. But they are a small part of my position on firearms.
As I have said I was a combat arms soldier in the Army. I attended very considerable training in the use of various firearms. I was an expert marksman in the use of my assigned weapons. This training was not an event but rather continued through my military career. I will not laundry list my training but Hindsite and SolorCross could both verify what a wide variety of training is available. I was an early participant in what was then called the "Combat in Cities Course". (Now several generations later loosely called Urban Warfare.) I mention this one only because it helped me develop my opinions about firearms and the general public. I will also point out that I own firearms and am permitted to carry one concealed should I avail myself of the opportunity. (I have twice in the past two years.) I will also point out that my volunteer work includes working with very dangerous people indeed. These include recently released felons, persons with mental disorders, criminals on the run, gang bangers and hard-core druggies. There is the setup.
I disagree with the assertion that the second amendment gives each citizen the right to own any kind of weapon that they want to own. The SCOTUS agrees with me on that point having upheld the rights of the federal government, states and localities to limit the type of weapons one might own and where they might be used or even possessed.
Now many states have chosen to allow what I consider preposterously liberal rules regarding the possession of firearms. My own state of Arizona allows every adult who is not a prohibited possessor to carry a concealed firearm. This is, in my opinion, lunacy. Every soldier knows that that the first thing that is done, before they are even allowed to see their rifle, is that they are taught safety. An integral part of firearm training in the military is how to deploy the various capabilities of your assigned weapon. In my early days it was the M-14 and M-16 automatic rifles. Pistols later.
As an example, one of the things I learned was how rarely and specifically one uses the automatic fire function of ones weapon. It is there for when you need it but it is not used very often; and not for what most people would think. Then there is the absolutely integral part of my training which was the 'rules of land warfare' combined with the local "rules of engagement". This is not such an easy subject as it might appear. One example that comes to mind in the Vietnam war was training in how to use the fires from our M-60 machine guns. We were taught that we would never engage a populated village with indiscriminate automatic weapons fire. We might engage a specific target in the village under some circumstances. This did not absolutely prevent people who are willing to break the rules from shooting civilians and though it happened far to often it prevented the vast majority of people from doing it. And I mention that to illustrate the importance of training in how to identify a bad guy and when and how to engage him. If indeed you engage him at all. Yet we allow Joe Shit the rag man to strap a semi-automatic pistol under his coat, and send him out into the public. It is nothing short of criminal. My opinion is that when and if a private citizen can show the need to arm himself in public, and can show that he/she has the training in how and when to use his firearm, then the government (state, local and federal) can license him to do so. This is the opinion of just about every civilized country in the world including some of the longest standing democracies. Summary. If I were in charge I would license private ownership of handguns and greatly restrict when and where they might be carried. And the mall, under the seat of the car, a public park or a bar are not on the list. And by an untrained person? Never anywhere. Does this violate the second amendment? Not according to the Supreme Court is doesn't.
I do not believe that civilians should be allowed to possess semi-automatic rifles and particularly those with features only necessary for military use. Joe citizen does not need a folding stock or otherwise concealable long guns for any purpose other than pure entertainment. They would not help him protect his home better than an old fashioned shotgun would and they won't help him overthrow a tyrannical government should he believe that is necessary. They will not even protect him better against and armed invasion. (You know that armed invasion we all so fear. By all of those countries which want to pick a ground fight with the most powerful nation in the history of the world and one possessing literally thousands of nuclear weapons, just to sweeten the pot.) There is absolutely no reason for a hunter to require a semi-automatic weapon unless they are a very bad marksman. And if that is the case, they have no business banging away in the woods.
But what about entertainment? Isn't that a reason? Sure. Target shooting is a fine hobby. I enjoy it myself. Just the other day I took my .45 to the local range and refreshed my skills with it. If someone wants to apply to own an AR-15, my answer is, sorry...no. Might one be available at a licensed range for someone to come by and use? Sure. Then after the last customer goes home it is unloaded and locked in the safe until the next business day. But in the trunk of Bubba's ford? Or in the bedroom closet where the kids can get to it? Nope.
Should a private citizen be allowed to own large capacity magazines? See the answer above. They shouldn't even be allowed to own the weapons into which one might be fitted. But if you want to give up on that fight, then at least limit magazines to no more than 5 rounds. Trust me. If the burglar and you are still shooting it out after you have fired five rounds from a long rifle, throw your gun at him and run. Then if you can find it when the police let you back in the house, sell it and buy a double barreled shotgun. Bump stocks which turn weapons that private citizens ought not own in the first place into automatic rifles for all intent and purpose, should have been outlawed a decade ago. Only an abject idiot would allow the kind of person who would own one to own any kind of weapon in the first place.
But you are enamored with silencers. To put away your first argument. I don't care if one has never been used to commit a crime. Actually about 44 a year are according to the ATF but that does not matter to me at all. The fact is that a tiny percentage of all firearms are used in crimes. So what is your point when you say they are not often used in crimes?
Yet I still favor taking steps to reduce the number of gun crimes. Why? Because I am tired of the carnage. Until one reaches the age of 45 homicide is one of the top five causes of death. It kills more people than cancer in people under 35. (Do we favor doing away with cancer prevention?) Two thirds of all homicide victims are killed using firearms. 75% of all multiple homicide events involve firearms. Now please do not show your ignorance by offering that if there were no firearms people would just use knives. One can run from a knife. Silencers "could" make a gun more dangerous if that is the intent of the user. If you are over 10 suicide leads homicide as a cause of death. But like homicides, guns figure in the majority of suicides and are by far and away the most deadly of all suicide attempts. Would getting rid of guns entirely make suicide attempts less common? Successful ones, yes.
But I will not go that far. People in the US have a right, under certain circumstances to own firearms. Our second amendment says so as interpreted by the courts and our tradition supports this. So if you want a rifle or a shotgun, go for it. If you are a good hunter you will be just fine, and with your bolt action rifle or your 12 gauge shotgun in your competent hands, the deer or duck doesn't have much of a chance. Want to play with pistols? Go ahead. Apply for a license, buy one, take it to the range and bang away. Then unload it, put it in your trunk, and take it home to the gun safe.
Want to carry a military firearm, shoot automatic fire, conceal your sidearm and carry it in harms way, throw grenades, call in artillery, a drone strike, an air strike or a nuke? Join what our forefathers called "a well ordered militia". We have them just waiting for you...The Army, the national guard, the army reserve and to a lesser extent the marines.
For a person not exceptionally well trained in the careful use of weapons, when and where they might be used for defense, and how to protect others around the event to even contemplate, not to mention carry, a firearm for self-defense or the protection of others is, in my opinion, immoral. And even if you think it is not immoral, it is obviously stupid and bordering on psychologically deranged.
That clear enough for you?
Flame on.
Last edited by Drlee on 06 Jan 2018 02:37, edited 1 time in total.
To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd.
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire
- By FiveofSwords
- By late
- By Tainari88