You Want A Gun? Then Do Something For Me

http://timkellogg.me/blog/2012/12/22/guns-and-responsibility/

by tkellogg • 14 years ago

12 28 14 years ago

timkellogg.me

orik• 14 years ago

Do people who want food also have the responsibility to feed society?

astolarz• 14 years ago

Straw man fallacy. Besides, I don't think I've heard of too many people going on deadly feeding rampages.

joshmlewis• 14 years ago

The idea isn't bad per say, but while it may be a good solution for you, it may not be the best solution for everyone. I live in the south, and I know a lot of people would be outraged at the idea of this. When it comes down to it, most people are selfish. They think having a gun is to protect them and their loved ones, not me or you. They wouldn't like the fact that they have to spend extra time and money for their 'God given right' to bear arms. An 80 hours course isn't going to stop people from being violent, look at the hijackers of 9/11, they had to go through and get their pilot training which costs thousands and a lot of time, and that just shows where there is a will there is a way and a course might help these situations but nothing is going to totally alleviate them.

I don't think a lot of people who don't live in the south or a rural area understand how guns are used in normal culture in places like here. People go out and hunt. A lot. They go target shooting, they have competitions, etc. It's a big deal and it's an issue that sits very close to the heart of a southern person.

I personally am not sure what should happen, but these are just some things I have seen and grown up around. Almost everyone has a gun here, most of them never get shot, but they are still really prevalent.

jaxn• 14 years ago

The difficulty in defining what to regulate is probably the hardest part of the problem and he just throws out a completely unworkable definition.

A double-action revolver would fit his definition of an "assault rifle".

rtkwe• 14 years ago

Even better depending on what you define as a reload a single action cap and ball could qualify. Restricting to rifles only, if you define a reload as taking bullets from outside the weapon and storing then in the weapon, which seems like a reasonable enough way to define it on the surface, a bolt action rifle with an internal box magazine (aka most rifles) would qualify. Also what would be the mission of the proposed volunteer police force? when would they be called in/up? who would govern and organize them?

danso3• 14 years ago

> “No person can own or operate an assault rifle as a civilian except for honorably discharged veterans, current military officers or enlisted personnel at E3 level or higher, or persons who have passed an 80 hour course. All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police (or some other analogous public safety service).”

Because nothing could go wrong with conferring special rights only to members of the military, right?

This proposed solution would have had limited impact on the recent killings that have stoked the current gun control argument. Adam Lanza would've have passed the 80-hour training requirement. Columbine and Virginia Tech was perpetrated by handguns and shotguns. Aurora did involve a rifle but VT still resulted in more fatalities with just handguns. The older perpetrator of the Beltway sniper attacks was an Army veteran.

This is not to say that gun control is bad. But the reasoning behind this solution is very specious.

cpursley• 14 years ago

He did mention an 80 hour course.

danso3• 14 years ago

Right...and that provision would've likely been passed by Adam Lanza. And it seems likely he would've been able to inflict such a massacre with lesser weapons; the VT killer caused more casualties with handguns.

The point is, the logical reasoning used to single AR-15s is so flimsy that the argument should be about regulating a much wider category of firearms. To single out AR-15s is just pandering.

CodeMage• 14 years ago

Expecting an 80-hour course to somehow deter a psychopath from shooting up a bunch of people strikes me as rather naive.

Bobble4• 14 years ago

This proposal assumes 2 things: 1) insane people are incapable of passing 80 hour courses; 2) sane people will not go insane in the future. Both of these assumptions are incorrect.

Bobble4• 14 years ago

Taking the argument to its logical conclusion: if you aren't willing to kill on behalf of the unarmed, you aren't worthy of defending yourself. Kill for me, or you deserve to die. That logic seems flawed.

tkellogg3• 14 years ago

That is in fact the logic of the the pro-gun party. Since politics is about compromise, might as well run with it...

Bobble4• 14 years ago

In what way, in fact, is that the logic of the "pro-gun party?" I myself have not heard the NRA or others ever say that non-gun owners deserve to die. Please elaborate.

dbecker2• 14 years ago

All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police

If someone wants to use a gun for criminal purposes, it's hard to imagine that giving them a badge first is going to solve anything.

It just means they could go on their power trip under the guise of police work in addition to doing it criminally.

RyJones• 14 years ago

This isn't how rights work.

andyjohnson0• 14 years ago

"the constitution specifically highlights firearms as a method reserved for future use to revolt against the government, if it ever becomes evil."

I keep reading this, but I don't believe the us constitution says any such thing. Am I (European) correct?

ej_campbell• 14 years ago

It was in the Declaration of Independence, but not the constitution.

hanleybrand• 14 years ago

You are correct - the 2nd amendment prohibits the US government from infringing the right to "to keep and bear arms" - it does not specify what kind of arms, so knives and swords (and theoretically but not actually) nuclear weapons would all be equally covered - supposedly as a check against tyranny, but this is not spelled out in the constitution, and sedition was made illegal about 10 years after the constitution was ratified.

My personal view, therefore is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment are a ridiculous fiction - as I imply above, US citizens can not actually build up an arsenal of weapons that would enable them to successfully challenge the US Government successfully (see Waco, Move, etc. - build up a big enough armory, you will be taken out).

So in my view gun rights only exist at this point to enrich arms dealers and give the citizenry an illusion of control, at the low, low cost of 80-something of our citizens per day.

secondChrome• 14 years ago

..."but military service has a way of vouching for their sanity."

Sadly, there are too many who lose their sanity thanks to the military.

sleighboy2• 14 years ago

I wish people would stop using the term "assault rifle" incorrectly. There is only one assault rifle ever, the Sturmgewehr 44.

pohl• 14 years ago

To start making your wish a reality, go update this page and address any concerns various WP editors may have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

sleighboy2• 14 years ago

That page gets it right in the "Definition" section saying the term is basically slang derived from the StG44 and that to be considered an "assault rifle" it must be select-fire. Those are Class III weapons in the US and already very restricted, assuming you have enough disposable income to buy one and find a seller. The example given in the post has nothing to do with Class III weapons, so the term is used improperly, that is my point.

regis• 14 years ago

I will never support any sort of gun control that does not also include disarming law enforcement. Is this not something other people are concerned with?

You Want A Gun? Then Do Something For Me

Related Stories