vg_ford: (last rites)
vg_ford ([personal profile] vg_ford) wrote2007-04-17 01:06 am
Entry tags:

Musing on the aftermath of VT tragedy

I wasn't sure I was going to post on this. I've been doing a lot of reading of the posts on my flist, and doing a lot of thinking, and finally decided that I was going to post after all.

I am a gun owner. My guns are not at my house: they are at my father's house, with gunlocks on my rifle, in the locked gun cabinet, with the ammunition stored separately, also under lock. I own, currently, a .22 rifle that was given to me for Christmas when I was 14 by my father, and a set of antique dueling pistols from the Civil War. Women's dueling pistols, actually (yup, been in the family for generations. Explains a lot, doesn't it?).

In the aftermath of a tragedy like this, there will once again be calls from both sides of the gun debate. Those supporting gun laws will be calling for a total ban on guns, which of course the NRA will never allow. Those against gun laws will be screaming 2nd Amendment rights. And in the screams and emotions, there will be absolutely no reasonable, rational discourse, so nothing will get done. Until the next tragedy, the next school shooting, the next sniper incident, at which point the cycle will begin again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

So what is the solution? Is it to truly get rid of all guns, to legislate them out of existance? Is it education? What is the solution?

Honestly, I don't know.

Personally, I don't think simple legislation will work. You can make tighter and tighter gun laws all you want: since criminals don't worry about other laws, then why should that stop them? Will it stop the accidents? Maybe. Will it stop the school shootings? I doubt it - most of them were committed with illegal guns, if I remember correctly.

Is this to say I'm anti-gun-legislation, that I'm one of those "NRA freaks"? No, I'm not. I support laws stating that guns and ammunition should be locked up and sold separately. I don't think anyone needs an M-16 or an AK-47 to go hunting. I support laws stating that there should be waiting periods and that we shouldn't sell to children.

However, I also support laws stating that everyone should know gun safety. How many accidents a year happen because kids are fooling around with Dad's or Mom's gun and it "just went off?" Let me tell you, my father made DAMN sure us kids ALL knew what a gun was. Number 1, it wasn't a toy. Number 2, if you point it at someone, you damn well better know what the consequences are. Number 3, if you aren't prepared to kill someone, don't point the damn gun at them.

Yes, guns are glamorized by American society. You only have to look at the movies, the music, the books to see that. So's organized crime (The Sopranos, anyone? Or Goodfellas?), drugs (Blow?), and any number of other things that really aren't good for our society in general.

So what's the answer? I don't know. Maybe it's time for a world-wide cleansing and starting over. (Damn, that sounds cynical, but it's quarter past 1 in the morning).

Maybe it's time humanity in general started taking responsibility for our own damn actions and started acting like damn adults.

[identity profile] evulkoneko.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 07:53 am (UTC)(link)
Well, if you take away guns, then people in crime will still have them; and the others will have knives. If you take away knives, people will use sticks and stones. Taking away one weapon does not take away someone's urge to hurt people. :| And it doesn't stop human curiousity finding new weapons. No one really gets that, do they?

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 06:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Nope, it doesn't seem like it. And that's pretty much my argument. You can legislate all you want: the criminals won't care, and the honest people who DO follow the laws will find other methods to protect themselves and/or kill one another.

I'm not really sure what the answer is.

[identity profile] queenoftheskies.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 12:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Personally, I don't own any guns. I don't really have the need or the desire, but I don't judge people who have them.

There are fanatics on both sides of the issue and I think that keeps the real heart of the matter from being discussed. It all boils down to common sense and responsibility, I think.

There will always be crazy people, though, and sadly, crazy people will kill innocent people, no matter what weapon they use. They always seem to find a way. We just need to find a way to recognize them ahead of time, I guess, and stop them.

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 06:09 pm (UTC)(link)
We just need to find a way to recognize them ahead of time, I guess, and stop them.

Yeah, and I'm at a loss to suggest how. But yes, I definitely agree, re: fanatics. And that's a whole 'nother problem in and of itself.

[identity profile] kbaccellia.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 01:38 pm (UTC)(link)
After my sister's murder, I went to the far extreme and wanted guns banned. Now I feel that there needs to be tougher laws on how to purchase a gun. My sister's murderer was able to walk into a gun store and purchase his weapon without an intense background check. He had some mental issues. You'd think after all these tragedies that the laws would be tougher but they aren't. From what I heard, it's still easy to purchase guns.

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 06:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed. But again, you come back to the fact that you can make the laws tougher, but the criminals who use them are going to ignore them. There's a post on [livejournal.com profile] jaylake's LJ to the effect that after they banned guns in Britian, gun-related crimes WENT UP. Not down. UP.

What do you do after you've banned them, you've legislated them to death, and people are still killing people with them?

And no, I really don't have an answer to it. I wish to hell someone did, though.

[identity profile] joncwriter.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 02:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Maybe it's just me, but legislation to ban guns is just yet another political Band-Aid that's too small for the wound it's trying to cover. I don't agree with guns myself, but I'm not going to keep others from them.

Sorry for such a lame answer, but there we are...

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 06:32 pm (UTC)(link)
It's not lame, it's truthful. Legislation IS like a Band-Aid trying to repair a slit throat.

It's just not enough. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer as to what is.

Other than humanity growing up.

[identity profile] onyxflame.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 05:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Banning guns, imo, would just be treating the symptom instead of the disease. A lot of ppl have guns, and some of them do bad things with them, and some of them don't. Therefore, guns aren't inherently evil. (Except possibly AK-47's and Uzi's and stuff like that. What legitimate reason could there be for a private citizen to own one, except possibly as part of a collection that they never use?)

The problem isn't guns. The problem is the asshats who use guns in ways they shouldn't use them. Therefore, the only way to solve the problem is to make ppl not want to use their guns for heinous purposes. However, it's pretty much impossible to get large numbers of humans to act like you want them to act, or feel what you want them to feel, or whatever. So, the problem will continue into the foreseeable future.

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 06:33 pm (UTC)(link)
The problem isn't guns. The problem is the asshats who use guns in ways they shouldn't use them.

Exactly.

(Anonymous) 2007-04-17 10:20 pm (UTC)(link)
This is Macfrode by the way, for some odd reason I'm having the hardest time posting to your LJ. A thought I had was that one of the big arguments in the gun control debate is that if you ban guns then the law abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves against the criminals with guns. This is a very valid concern, however if we developed a better non lethal device to incapacitate an attacker without killing then guns wouldn't be needed for defence. It would have to have the range and ability for multiple uses like a gun as opposed to the single use and close range needed for a taser. This would help in a couple of ways, first there would be fewer guns out there for the criminals to get their hands on. (many murders are commited with stolen guns) I would think that given the choice between a gun and an equally effective non lethal method, a lot of people would chose the non lethal. Secondly more people might actually carry and use such a non lethal defensive device since it wouldn't have the inherent dangers of a gun. This would be a benifit because I think that if a person pulled out a gun and started shooting and 20 or so people pulled out the non lethal devices that had the range and multiple use abilities of a gun and fired back someone would incapacitate the shooter before many people got shot.

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-18 05:17 am (UTC)(link)
That would be great, but until then, what's the solution? And how do you know this alternative would stay nonlethal? After all, there are kits you can buy on the internet to turn legal semi-automatics into illegal full automatics.

You know how the human race is: give us a foot, and we'll take the whole damn field.

[identity profile] kuzushi.livejournal.com 2007-04-17 11:38 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it's the guns.
It's the people and parents for the most part. Not always but for the most part. To quote and old and probably over used clishe' Gun's don't kill people.
People kill people.

"Maybe it's time humanity in general started taking responsibility for our own damn actions and started acting like damn adults."

Yup I do agree.

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-18 05:17 am (UTC)(link)
Exactly: people kill people. If they didn't do it with guns, they'd do it with something else.

And yes, we need more education. Desperately.

[identity profile] tangled-fortune.livejournal.com 2007-04-18 06:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm of the opinion that people should not be allowed to sell or own weapons designed specifically for killing other people. I'm afraid I simply don't have enough faith in the maturity and wisdom of humanity for that :P

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a pacifist. I just wouldn't keep a gun in the house for the same reason I wouldn't keep a man eating crocodile. Sure, he might eat any burglars that come into the house, but it's a hell of a lot more likely that I'm the one who's going to get bitten.

Education or not, with or without safety procedures, guns exist for one specific purpose; to kill stuff. I just don't want that in my house. Or my suburb. Or my city. Or my country.

Yes, people kill people. Guns just make it a helluva lot easier. I've seen someone I love pushed so far that if they'd had a gun handy someone would have died. This was a reasonable, sane person who normally would never hurt a fly (literally). Everyone, EVERYONE, has that breaking point, no matter how safe they think they are. How well educated. How sensible and "not one of those crazies and gun nuts." I've also been in a position where if the person in front of me had had a gun instead of a house brick I'd be dead right now. This was not the sort of person with the sort of connections or street smarts to procure a gun illegally. This was a private citizen on a really bad day and too much weed.

I live in a society where you can't buy hand guns. The laws that other countries are so riled up about already exist here. And despite all the protestations I hear in those other countries, there's not one single person in this country who's worse off for them, and a whole lot of people who are better off. Guns are simply not a part of our lives here.

People are resistant to having their freedoms curtailed (at least, when they realise it's happening :P ), but guns are not a right of being human. They're a ridiculous exemplification of our flawed nature. They have no place in a civilized society, and no place in any future that I would create.

[identity profile] vg-ford.livejournal.com 2007-04-18 09:31 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree, to a point. For example, as has been stated elsewhere, if you can't get a gun, you can just as easily get a knife. A stick. You say you don't have things specifically in your house to kill people: don't you have knives? The first knives weren't used to cut trees - they were used to protect our ancesters from the predators around them. They were created to kill.

Yes, it's an extreme example. But my college didn't allow things like butter knives in the dorm room, because they could be used as deadly weapons. BUTTER KNIVES.

And it's ridiculously easy to get an illegal gun, anywhere. I could go out and get one in the next town over, and I'm in rural New Hampshire.

So we'll agree to respectfully disagree, okay? :)