Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

musings on the gun control issue

8K views 110 replies 26 participants last post by  speyfisher 
#1 ·
I was ruminating on this over my morning coffee after reading about Giffords' plaintive appeal in the paper this morning: I agree that something should be done, but it's not the firearms that cause the problem any more than it's that machete lying dormant in your basement.

First, universal background checks aren't a bad thing, BUT the NRA has a valid point: what's the purpose of the check, if you're not going to prosecute those who lie on the form (a felony, by the way). If a universal requirement was also followed by universal prosecution for falsification, I'd favor it. And it should be applied to private sales as well. Let's leave the "inheritance" issue alone for now.

Second, this "mental health" issue is a red herring; medical people are ALREADY required to report those who they believe will go bonkers to law enforcement (shrinks, chime in here?)

Third, a storage requirement would pretty much eliminate the utility of any firearm to be used for defense within a home, so that won't work,either. This brings me to my thought on the actual question of the debate: is this for lunatic/criminal control as a means of preventing this outrageous violence, or is it's purpose to disarm a society completely so the people who have a phobia about guns will "feel safe"?

I don't have any answer here if the question's to prevent the loony tunes from whacking people, but... the availability of firearms I don't believe is at the heart of the issue. When I was a kid, you could walk into any hardware store in the nation and walk out with an M1 Carbine, hi-cap mags and all, or a Garand, both battle rifles with a decent capacity and quick reloading ability. There were NO crazies blowing kids away in schools, so this looks like it's some sort of cultural or sociological issue. The crazies were there, for sure, but something else is going on now that wasn't present then.

The sad thing is: while a University study to determine if the bubble curtain in a glass of Guinness actually goes down received a grant, but effects of violent video gaming? Haven't seen any. this may not have anything to do with the issue, either. Another thing that has drastically changed is the way we educate our kids. When I was a kid, and you were bullied, it was up to you to defend yourself-the school wouldn't do anything about it. If you did smack the other kid, nothing usually happened to you. Now, the school really doesn't do anything about bullying, but God forfend if you smack the asshole-you're outta there! Has society deteriorated so far, with unwed mothers all over the place, schools punishing those who try to stand up for themselves, Tuba Man murderers repeatedly let go after they commit yet another crime, little or no consequences for criminals of all stripes.

Then, there's Switzerland, where the military is primarily housed in their own homes, along with their fully automatic weapons. Their military is all able-bodied men; it's a national requirement. Don't hear about a lot of gun violence there, do we. Why is that, do you think? Just wondering... And musing.
 
See less See more
#89 ·
Ex cogitatione veniet rationis . . . I once believed my vocation to be that of the priesthood . . . then Latin became English, guitars appeared in church, priests quit the priesthood, and I discovered the fairer sex. What can I say? Spiritus quidem promptus caro vero infirma (I needed help with this one . . . thank God I still retain volumes of textbooks, lol.). And I'd share with you also, Boot; and I'd defend your right to express your beliefs . . . you long-ago joined a very specific list of WFF members I'd like to meet someday. To put it in Montana-speak: "You're one to ride the river with . . . "
 
#91 ·
I say we lay this dead horse in the ground. We've all said our minds (what little we have left) and it's time for a new subject. How about a Canyon Creek shoot or a trap outing somewhere? Boot is invited also...but all we can talk about is fish, birds, and dogs, no gun talk unless it's drooling over Alex's doubles.
 
#93 ·
That does sound fun, but jesus, don't spare the gun talk on account of me. especially if we're talking historic firearms. I'd vastly prefer to shut up and listen to a bunch a guys talking about guns, their history, why they prefer one over the other, talking smack about who can and who can't shoot etc than talking about fly fishing gear, let alone politics etc...PLus I'd have to be kinda stupid to piss someone off when they got a shotgun and I don't.
 
#97 ·
For real? The trap shoot, I mean. I hunted deer as a kid and intended to take up bird hunting, but never learned wingshooting. I have a sweet 16 SxS but was too embarrassed to go to the local trap range because I can probably only hit the broad side of a barn and slow intruders if necessary.
 
#101 ·
Boy, have I been there with our first Golden, Aspen. She'd "tisk" her teeth on the first duck we'd miss, and on the second, she's actually swim out into the deeks, and bring one back to drop at our feet in the blind. She'd snick her teeth, roll her eyes, sigh, the dog had NO shame!!
 
#105 ·
"Folks are offing themselves. Good, decent folks with guns (those are your guys) get it done in less than a second."

1) Suicide is a terrible thing.
2) There's only one person responsible for a suicide.
3) Exactly how does the suicide cause society any expense? (The only ones I can think of would be the funeral. Doesn't the family usually pay for that?)

Sounds callous, but then again claiming that ALL of society somehow receives a higher health or public safety bill as a result of exercising that protected 2nd Amendment right is also completely disingenuous IMHO. No one, from the pundit to the politician, has ever shown me the statistics or flowchart and invoices to prove that propaganda.
 
#107 ·
This thread may successfully draw a bunch of cool folks together...for that I'm grateful and interested. Hope there is an outing of sorts to follow!
 
#108 ·
I have have worked in Nursing homes and have taken care of dozens of elderly folks with dementia . My wife is a nurse who has also worked in nursing homes treating and carin g for people with dementia.

I helped my Mom take care of my Dad For 10 years. He was a lifetime gun owner was a Korean war vet and NRA member. He had Lewy Body syndrome a form of dementia and died because of this disease. My wife and I never saw any form of paranoia induced firearm violence committed by people with dementia.

Because 2/3 gun fatalities occur in the home of the gunowner. Because the risks of having a gun in your house jeopardizes everyone under your roof. Your conscious decision to bring a gun into your house raises the risk of sudden death or morbidity to anyone in your house. These are your people that are hurting themselves or their own. Should that occur, we all pay for it. I don't want to have to pay for other people's risky hobbies and the accidents that come with them.

Costs change behaviors. A principle of capitalism in a first world society is to monetize risk. We do it for car insurance. We do it for cigarettes, we do it for alcohol. We do it for entrepreneurs. We don't do it for guns. Why shouldn't we? Nothing in the second amendment about monetizing risk jeopardizes the right to own firearms. The first amendment lists a freedom to peacefully assemble, why should my freedom to peacefully assemble involve subsidizing others decisions to jeopardize that? If folks can't understand statistics on the risk they put their spouse and children in by bringing a gun into their house, then government by the people has every right to ask that their illiteracy on risk is monetized. Amazingly there is no constitutional right to drive a car (the dangers of constitutional amendments and rights are that sometimes they miss out on really valuable rights (to drive places) and substitute ones that are not so valuable ( just one example here, the 27th amendment for instance- prevents Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress) and yet, amazingly, you are allowed to drive one so long as you comply with licenses, renewals, fees, traffic laws, insurance, and liability agreements.

We are on the same page with drunkards, potheads, meth abusers, contact sports, parental stupidity on fireworks use, (presumably poachers too) (Let's see how the NFL responds over the next few years as the dementia lawsuits roll in re rule changes..). Seems to me like you have an inherent understanding of the costs of risk taking, and yet guns are somehow taboo? I have a hard time understanding that dichotomy.

I know what you're saying. Alls I had to do to get a driver's license in Memphis was to turn right four times in a series of abandoned streets, I did this fully continent. But incontinence isn't the same as judgement. Fecal and urinary incontinence may not impair ability to drive a vehicle. On the other hand demonstrated neurological and visual impairments have pathways to revoke licensure. Not the case for gunowners. You could be demented, paranoid, blind and covered in stool and urine and you can buy a gun, you can buy and use ammunition. Particularly if your background checks out. That's not reassuring. What's even less reassuring is , many others don't support "any changes that infringe on that right whatsoever" not even tests of cognitive competency.

Why not?

I'll say it again, 50% of 85 year olds will have some degree of dementing illness. What's the fastest growing demographic in the US? The oldest old...that's a lot of demented folks with firearms we have to look forward too. That's reason enough for me to have folks re-certifying and paying for the privilege of shooting, just like we pay for the privilege to fish WA waters...

Dorylf I get that folks will try to off themselves however they can. I understand in Japan there are cultures, longstanding ones, of honorable suicides deeply tied up with notions of hierarchy and shame. It doesn't make it any less a tragedy there. But here in the US, where men preferentially use guns to kill themselves, It's a lot harder to salvage a gunshot wound than knife or OD attempts.

It changes things when it's your son, wife, daughter or old man that offs themselves with your gun. I am not OK with 17-year-olds shooting themselves, let alone their cross town rivals. Similarly I am not OK with you guys shooting yourselves, or your kids getting into your guns and offing themselves, or their sister or whatever other ridiculous combination of your family that got, as Oscar Pistorius put it "mistaken for a prowler...."
 
#109 ·
Having a gun in your house jeopardizes everyone under your roof? More like having a gun in the home protects everyone under your roof! You may choose, for whatever reason, not to have a gun. That is your right. Whatever negative views you harbor concerning firearms does not however, give you the right to infringe upon mine! And please tell me how the government having my name, address, and a list of every firearm I (legally) own, is going to have any effect on reducing crime?
 
#111 ·
Something else for some of you to ponder. One of the beauties of the English language is the ability to articulate ones thoughts with absolute clarity and precision. Of course, the person on the receiving end of the communique must also possess an equal knowledge of the language in order to fully comprehend that which is being said. This coming from one who absolutely hated English classes, couldn't understand why I had to suffer through three years of it in high school, and barely escaped with a passing grade!

So for those who think the Founding Fathers could not have, in their wildest dreams, imagined semi auto pistols and rifles, remember, they were, for the most part, very well educated. The real beauty of the second (as well as the rest) amendment is not only what it says, but what it does not say. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The militia has been defined as NOT the national guard, since it was not established until well over one hundred years after the writing of the Constitution but rather, the whole of the people. Well regulated? If the government has the ability to regulate what arms the people are to possess, how would the people be able to secure a free state? Well regulated means well supplied and trained. Notice also, arms are not defined at all. Pitch forks, axes, full auto rifles, grenade launchers? In Miller vs. the US, a sawed off shotgun was ruled as not protected under the second amendment. Why? Because it was not in common use by the military of the day. If that applies, then are we, the people, not entitled to possess today's military fire arms?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top