h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm always surprised to find that I sound like a rabid gun nut after reading my views on this topic. So with that warning...

My family has always owned guns. I have a Pennsylvania rifle (some wrong-headed people will call it a Kentucky rifle) hanging in my home that was owned by a distant relative. It has been passed down through the generations since the 1780s. It is a percussion-style musket. And while it might still fire, it hasn't been used in more than 100 years.

With some strict gun control proposals, I would have to give up this piece of my family's legacy. Bullocks I say!!

I own a few guns, both rifles and handguns. I also have small children. Therefore, I store my firearms and ammo in the large family gun locker at my parents house. It has a combination lock and the little ones can't get in.

I've been a shooter since my pre-teen years. I don't hunt. I target shoot and occaisionally enter competitive shooting tournaments, block shoots, etc. I would never keep a firearm in my home for self-defense.

My father is a policeman. I was in Boy Scouts. Both taught me how to responsibly discharge a weapon. When I was in ROTC in college, my instructors were impressed with my range safety AND marksmanship.

As for Americans having a Constitutional Right to "bear arms," again I say Bullocks!

The Constitutions says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How many gun owners in America are members of the Militia (which in 1791 was a state-sanctioned entity)? Today's Militia is the National Guard. So going by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, only members of the National Guard have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Then what about the rest of us poor slobs? Please check out Amendments 9 and 10 in the Bill of Rights:

- Amendment IX - "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

- Amendment X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So Gun Control is a state or local issue as I see it. If you don't like your local gun laws, you have the right to try to effect a change at these levels. National politicians who tell you otherwise are, in my opinion, over-stepping their Constitutional bounds.

I know that every gun owner isn't responsible. I also know that police guns from Miami have ended up on the streets of Chicago. What's the solution?

Don't ask me! I just want to keep the guns I've got!

Hmm... "You would think the national politicians would jump at that opportunity."

REPORTER: "Governor Bush, what's your stand on Gun Control?"

BUSH: "Uh.. Ah... Uhm... (someone whispers in his ear) Oh really? Wow!"

REPORTER: "Sir? Could you answer the question please?"

BUSH: "Sure! I'd be happy to! Gun issues are constitutionally a state and local issue and I don't have a specific decision either way, except for my own personal little scruples of course. No harm in hunting for some *quail* every now and then! He he he. But if elected president I will see to it that every local and state government takes the issue under serious advisement and listens to their constituents, who are after all the American people! Now if you'll excuse me..."

REPORTER: "Governor Bush! As governor of Texas what did you do about Gun Control?"

BUSH: "What? Oh, well back then I thought it was a federal issue, because Federal agents, y'know, like stormed Waco and all that. So I let the federal government handle it. Now that I've been properly informed, as a federally elected civil servant of the American people, I'll let the local governments handle it. Excuse me please. No more questions."

_______
Sounds like a flawless stance to take to me. Less work for them. So why don't they do that? Hrmm..

Who reads the Constitution anyway? Surely not the courts!!

BTW: Do they even teach Civics in school anymore? I work in a school district in Pennsylvania, and I would say that our kids take the class, but it's more about how to vote and why they should.... Not too much about how the system works and what it's alleged rules are.

- X

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I read somewhere that exactly one year after the Australian gun ban the occurence of almost every armed crime increased dramatically. I think it said that in Victoria armed assault went up 300%(Illegal ownership was the only thing to increase more dramatically, but I guess you'd expect that when you make ownership illegal). Just felt like throwing that out and sounding somewhat informed.

There was also quite a heated exchange in a forum on a completely different subject about the matter, where there is a lot of info. about the laws in the UK and Oz, but there's quite a bit of banter to filter through.

I'm still for gun control/ban. I've shot a gun only once (handgun, not a rifle or anything), and just feeling the power from that end of the thing scared me enough.

Yet you don't feel the same thing when you get behind the wheel of a car?

I love that we expect that painted yellow line in the middle of the road to protect us from oncoming traffic. If there's a psycho behind the wheel, what's to stop him from crossing over and running down a bunch of people on the sidewalk or something?

Oh wait, I think that's the next big random act of terror once the panic over school shootings subsides into a dull ache!

- X

Good point, but you don't need a gun to conduct everyday business in our society. I mean, there are people that do that, like the guy down here who went to the military base, stole a tank - yes, like one of those huge war tanks - and ran over cars and stuff on I15 for over an hour... but there will always be wackos like that, no matter what you ban... The thing is, driving cars over people isn't glamourised. And it's a lot harder for a three or four year old to do than pull a trigger.

True!

Oh, and have a Happy Holiday!!

(I'm not thinking about unpleasant things until after 1/1/00)

- X

Okay.. I jump in at the deep end. I always find it easier to paddle around with fully extended strokes and I don't have a chance of skinning my knees like when I start at the shallow end. Actually, upon reflection, I've never been shallow. Call it a character flaw.

A quick response to the previous post. He makes a commendable point about being responsible about his use and knowledge of guns. I applaud that. As there's seriously no real chance of guns going away soon, I appreciate his viewpoint.

But a few 'potshots' (how apt) if I might.

You wanna practice your aim? Go play one of those video games. Or take up archery.

You say some of your guns are family heirlooms? Donate them to a local museum and take the neighbours to see them on Saturdays.

Worried about frenetic situations where others may be packing? Okay, that's a bit of a rough one but here in Canada, I've often heard stories of policemen (read: guys with guns for a living) who never unholster their weapons in their entire police career. They learn a bit about crowd control, dealing with high pressure situations, a bit of self-defense and a smattering of psychology.

Sounds good to me.

I appreciate your viewpoint but its time to outgrow this fascination with penile weaponry. I don't suggest a female viewpoint would act any differently. It's simply a question of who's in power in any given era and the favoured weapon of choice. I imagine if the wimmenfolk had their way back in the days of the cowboy, we'd be tottin' frying pans.

Just my view, of course.

At the risk of being dramatic (hell, that's why we write, isn't it) I am also reminded of a movie I saw a million years ago that I would like to offer as a 'real' suggestion to anyone who enjoys hunting. Of course, too bad the character in the movie wasn't real.

Do you recall the scene in the Winona Ryder, Sean Patrick Flannery (?) movie, "Powder"? After seeing that scene (not that I needed reinforcement) my thinking about people who shoot for sport was carved in stone.

Do you remember that scene? I know not a lot of people saw that movie. It was in the Toronto theatres for a few short time. (I used to live in Toronto) You could probably catch it on video if you dug hard.

The tale could never be in the telling so I won't try. But the gist of it was this:

The slightly supernatural character (played by Flannery) kneels beside a doe that's been shot by a hunter. The hunter who is nearby has his hand grasped by Flannery who touches the dying animal, sending that sense of dying and death through his powers to the hunter.

The hunter feels the animal die. The look on his face suggests he got the point.

I cried.

Point made.

>Yet you don't feel the same thing when you get behind the wheel of a car?

I know this is a forum and I know people toss out thoughts for the chance to exchange thoughts. I'm not high fallutin' or anything. I realize this is just words.

Course, so are mine, so take them in the spirit of exchange in which they are given. I've always felt like I was merely practicing my English when I wrote anyway. Smile.

But per the above comment: You're kidding right? You are comparing a lethal weapon (that's what it does, it kills things) to a mode of transportation?

At the risk of sounding like a movie analogist (is that a word) I suppose per the movie "The Boston Strangler" that means if I buy a coke in a glass bottle, I plan to rape old women with it, hmm?

I also have serious problems with the 'sport' of hunting. (I fail to see the sport.)
But target shooting on the other hand......

I suppose someone ought to step up to the plate and represent responsible gun ownership.

- I hunt. Not for sport, but to eat what I kill. I see no ethical difference between this, slaughtering our own chickens, and buying meat in plastic at the supermarket. Well, perhaps a bit; I know the animals that I kill for food are killed quickly and cleanly. Vegans may perhaps have a superior moral position here.

- I own guns. More than one. I happen to both enjoy target shooting and to want to keep my family safe in a rural area without substantial law enforcement presence. No one gets near my guns without my checking them out on safety issues. No one shoots them at other people. I do not brandish them or threaten others. They are kept safely locked up on the rare occasions when I am not right there with them.

- I am licensed by the state of Washington to carry a concealed weapon. I'm not the only one, by several hundred thousand. That's a fact of life. Whether I'm actually carrying at any given time is my business, not yours.

Summary: My gun ownership does not interfere with your life. It's no more of a threat to anyone else than my ownership of power tools.

With respect to the post that started this thread, I think reasonable people can disagree as to the definition of "Militia" in the Constitution. It's an open question (at least to me) whether that refers to the organized National Guard or to the great mass of people. Can be (and has been) argued either way.

Ahh, another gun-totting American!

Don't know why but I always thought you were a Brit ffmike! What a surprise!!

- X

Probably just confused by the fact that the Brits infest this place

While I respect your first posting tons (any target-shooter that doesn't hunt gets points in my book), I hate this oft-used analogy between guns and cars. "Both kill, and cars kill more." But guns are designed to kill. I'd bet the gun owners who are as responsible as you (locking 'em up) and as focused as you (not for defense, not for hunting) and few and far between. Guns are made for only one reason. To kill or maim. Cars are made to transport. How late am I in responding to this? Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, all.
~No O2

*brushes dust off forum*

I think the point I was trying to make with the car statement was in response to Fenny's feelings 'I've shot a gun only once (handgun, not a rifle or anything), and just feeling the power from that end of the thing scared me enough.'

My feeling is that there's the same power in an automobile, but it isn't hyped as much. And you can create as much mayhem with a car as you can with a firearm (to a degree).

As for shooters not being as responsible as me - my father is a cop. As a newspaper reporter, I've covered funerals of other cops who were killed in the line of duty by some trash that is living on my tax dollars on death row.

I know the power of a firearm. I respect it. I won't allow my firearms to fall into the wrong hands (anyone's by mine).

But in the same sense, I know my government currently provides me the 'right' to possess these weapons. This 'right' has been held by the US Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers to be as vital as my 'right' as a reporter to inform the public, my 'right' as a citizen to vote and practice my religion freely. It *is* a heavy responsibility.

Yes, I know, I'm very late in coming into the fray. Nice response time, though.

Yes, you can create as much mayhem with a car, but my point is that the car was designed to be used as a transportation device...mostly, that's what it is used for, too. Well, except for...uh, you know. Guns, though, those were designed just to destroy things. That's my problem with the analogy. Although I guess I can see your useage here was a little different than the usual, so...um...did I have a point somewhere?
-No O2

I'm responding to the idea that there are officers that never draw their weapons. As a police officer, I can't imagine an officer with more than a month on the job that hasn't drawn his weapon. You don't have to use a firearm every time you draw it, but there are many times when you should draw your weapon.

In the three years I've been a police officer I can't even recall how many times I've had to draw my weapon. Some examples of when I've pulled my weapon range from reponding to a burglary alarm and clearing the building, felony traffic stops, calls where a person is supposidly armed, responding to violent felonies in progress, searching a home where a fugitive was hiding, a lady who was holding a gun at herself, and so forth. I police in a fairly quiet suburban county. When it comes to the use of force I'm pretty conservative. The only use of force I have actually used is soft hands.

I can't imagine working in a big city. I don't know how they make it through a career without actually having to shoot someone.

If a police officer in the US can make it through a career without pulling his weapon on the job, he isn't doing his job, or they don't really need a police department.

Jason

methinks maybe i need to move to canada?