I try to keep it a little on the down low on my blog regarding “politics”
(even though this shouldn’t be a political issue happening right now) I can’t
seem to wrap my head around the arguments I’m hearing on social media. How so many people untouched by these shootings convincing themselves that
gun control wouldn’t change anything, without even trying anything is mind boggling.
I've seen memes shared that actually are stating false facts about American states with tighter gun control restrictions. One saying that all of the states with tighter restrictions have the worst gun violence, after just seeing an expert on the news state the exact opposite. The meme shares no factual data to back their claims, but others will see this and likely too many people will believe this to be true. It's disheartening, especially after learning what Russia was able to do with similar social media posts and the candidates. We learn nothing and continue to let false information and propaganda and fear drive our decisions. Not to mention that bottom line, the more guns that are out in the hands of people, the more gun violence you will have. It's not to say that those same states with stricter gun laws, don't somehow still have higher violence in general, but not gun driven. And for me personally, I think I have less of a chance surviving a bullet than someone coming at me with a knife. Most likely you have at least a running chance of getting away from a knife, bat, stick...whatever, unlike a bullet which is hard to run from.
We are telling people to not blame inanimate objects and how ridiculous it is do so, but while saying these things, they are treating guns, not as inanimate objects but rather giving them life of their own with statements such as "Don't blame the gun" and "It's not the gun's fault" Odd statements for something that has no feelings nor cares if you blame it. Especially because we immediately seem to blame a pit bull for attacking a person, but the owner is rarely punished. But it's apples and oranges. Another meme shared similar comparisons that didn't hold water for me either. "We don't blame the car in a DUI". While this is true, a driver isn't getting into a car drunk and saying, "hey I think I'll kill a bunch of people tonight." Though they inherently know the risk, it's not an intention to hurt people, which is the direct opposite of what the shooter was looking to accomplish in Florida. Then there is the "we don't blame the bomb in a bombing", but most people aren't trying to fight for their right to own a bomb and generally the bomb is destroyed in the bombing...and you can't go out and buy a bomb, you are making them in secret...so failed arguments and logic.
People are saying that the few bad apples shouldn't affect the vast majority of law abiding gun owners. These would be the same people who think that the few scammers of welfare should affect all welfare recipients, even ones that deserve it and need it. And scammers of welfare aren't killing people, so this troubles me too that we are so hypocritical.
Another statement I've read is people thinking that teachers should be armed and trained. I feel we would have far less competent teachers because being armed and trained to fight isn't a natural born teachers calling from my perspective. Otherwise they would be SWAT, Defense, Military, police and etc. Teaching our children is their calling. We would have a completely different type of teacher. This would also cost money, something our administration is trying to cut from public education and give it rather to the private school institutions. Please tell me how that works. It's ridiculous to make that part of the job description instead of simply making people do more to get a gun than is required to have a driver's license. To conceal and carry in my state, you need to take a test. However, if you don't want to conceal but just have one, then you don't need to take a test, but rather just wait a few days on the background check. This is to counter the argument that you would in fact have to take a test and gun safety classes to own a gun. From all my research in the state that I live, it's only for a conceal and carry permit. There are some states though, that do require the testing, but again, I'm not 100% on every state and if that is for (like here) just the conceal and carry.
Speaking of my state, it seems really ridiculously simple to fill out the initial application and the weird statement that you must be 21 for a hand gun, but 18 for a semi automatic. I'm not even sure I get that!? The gun most popular in general (which has the least necessary use among civilians) and most popular in mass shootings, is the gun we here in Minnesota think people should be able to buy at the younger age? Interesting. (Keep in mind this is the application for the permit, but cut and pasted directly from their own website)
I've seen memes shared that actually are stating false facts about American states with tighter gun control restrictions. One saying that all of the states with tighter restrictions have the worst gun violence, after just seeing an expert on the news state the exact opposite. The meme shares no factual data to back their claims, but others will see this and likely too many people will believe this to be true. It's disheartening, especially after learning what Russia was able to do with similar social media posts and the candidates. We learn nothing and continue to let false information and propaganda and fear drive our decisions. Not to mention that bottom line, the more guns that are out in the hands of people, the more gun violence you will have. It's not to say that those same states with stricter gun laws, don't somehow still have higher violence in general, but not gun driven. And for me personally, I think I have less of a chance surviving a bullet than someone coming at me with a knife. Most likely you have at least a running chance of getting away from a knife, bat, stick...whatever, unlike a bullet which is hard to run from.
We are telling people to not blame inanimate objects and how ridiculous it is do so, but while saying these things, they are treating guns, not as inanimate objects but rather giving them life of their own with statements such as "Don't blame the gun" and "It's not the gun's fault" Odd statements for something that has no feelings nor cares if you blame it. Especially because we immediately seem to blame a pit bull for attacking a person, but the owner is rarely punished. But it's apples and oranges. Another meme shared similar comparisons that didn't hold water for me either. "We don't blame the car in a DUI". While this is true, a driver isn't getting into a car drunk and saying, "hey I think I'll kill a bunch of people tonight." Though they inherently know the risk, it's not an intention to hurt people, which is the direct opposite of what the shooter was looking to accomplish in Florida. Then there is the "we don't blame the bomb in a bombing", but most people aren't trying to fight for their right to own a bomb and generally the bomb is destroyed in the bombing...and you can't go out and buy a bomb, you are making them in secret...so failed arguments and logic.
People are saying that the few bad apples shouldn't affect the vast majority of law abiding gun owners. These would be the same people who think that the few scammers of welfare should affect all welfare recipients, even ones that deserve it and need it. And scammers of welfare aren't killing people, so this troubles me too that we are so hypocritical.
Another statement I've read is people thinking that teachers should be armed and trained. I feel we would have far less competent teachers because being armed and trained to fight isn't a natural born teachers calling from my perspective. Otherwise they would be SWAT, Defense, Military, police and etc. Teaching our children is their calling. We would have a completely different type of teacher. This would also cost money, something our administration is trying to cut from public education and give it rather to the private school institutions. Please tell me how that works. It's ridiculous to make that part of the job description instead of simply making people do more to get a gun than is required to have a driver's license. To conceal and carry in my state, you need to take a test. However, if you don't want to conceal but just have one, then you don't need to take a test, but rather just wait a few days on the background check. This is to counter the argument that you would in fact have to take a test and gun safety classes to own a gun. From all my research in the state that I live, it's only for a conceal and carry permit. There are some states though, that do require the testing, but again, I'm not 100% on every state and if that is for (like here) just the conceal and carry.
Speaking of my state, it seems really ridiculously simple to fill out the initial application and the weird statement that you must be 21 for a hand gun, but 18 for a semi automatic. I'm not even sure I get that!? The gun most popular in general (which has the least necessary use among civilians) and most popular in mass shootings, is the gun we here in Minnesota think people should be able to buy at the younger age? Interesting. (Keep in mind this is the application for the permit, but cut and pasted directly from their own website)
Fill out a Minnesota Uniform Firearm Application/Receipt Permit to Purchase/Transfer. Submit the application to your local police chief, or if your municipality does not have a police department, to your county's sheriff. The law enforcement agency will conduct a series of background-related checks to assure you meet eligibility requirements established in state law.
Once those checks are complete, a one-year permit to purchase a handgun in Minnesota will be issued. If you are applying for a permit to transfer the law enforcement agency must notify you of its status within seven days of receipt.
Option 2
If you want to make a one-time purchase of a handgun from a dealer and you do not have a permit to purchase, you may apply directly at the gun shop where you will purchase the handgun. The gun shop will require you to complete a consent form that allows them to conduct a name and date-of-birth background check to determine your eligibility to purchase a gun. However, some businesses may choose to follow other business practices. The gun shops are entitled to charge a fee for this service.
Please read the following restrictions carefully. They apply to the possession of firearms, to
purchase/transfer permits, and reports of transfer for handguns and semiautomatic military-style assault
weapons. Individuals with restrictions shall not be entitled to possess a pistol or any other firearm. The
legal basis for the restrictions may be found in federal law (18 United States Code § 922) or Minnesota law
(Minnesota Statutes, §§ 253B.02, 624.712, 624.713. 624.7131 or 624.714). I understand the following:
• I must be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun or handgun ammunition from a federally licensed dealer.
• I must be at least 18 years old to purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle.
• I must be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun or handgun ammunition from a federally licensed dealer.
• I must be at least 18 years old to purchase a semi-automatic assault rifle.
There are many more restrictions around criminal aspects of restrictions, but I'm confused by this differing in age.
I wonder why people feel that their right to have an AR-15 supersedes the rights of children to not be shot and killed in school. I won't be convinced that this particular gone is necessary for anyone to have. Do I know people that have them? Yep. Do I think they are going to hurt people? Nope. But will they have pretty much any other gun at their disposal? Yes. So again, why are we so steadfastly clinging to the need to have this particular gun. I read an interesting article that really put it into perspective. It's popular. It's what the professionals use. And that is how many people make their purchasing decisions with anything and everything. They want to have what everyone else has. If a basketball player has a new tennis shoe, all the kids want that tennis shoe. Will they be a great ball player too, probably not, but boy the feel closer to that ball player.
Another post I saw recently basically insinuated that if you were for gun control at all then you were a gun hater or gun owner hater. Very short sighted and unequivocally untrue. I get it. I've gone hunting, I've shot guns. It is fun, but I can always live without an AR-15 and so could the victims of the crazed killer who got his hands on one and four or so other weapons in the year leading up to this. Does he need mental healthcare? I can assume he does. Hard to get that with our administration and it's supporters wanting to remove health care from those dang poor people sucking up our tax dollars, so now what? Should the FBI have caught the tip they received and done something about it? Absolutely. It's tragic that they didn't, but they are not the only one to blame in this equation. They missed it, we didn't help treat him, we didn't restrict his access to his guns, he found encouragement on websites on how to make his gun more deadly (not that he used it thank God), and we continue to publish his name and give him the fame he most likely desires. We are still moving this cycle in the same direction and no one wants to change one damn thing. It's always just talk and rhetoric and then the next shooting happens and it's the same bs discussion. Though the wonderful kids of this most recent shooting are speaking up this time and I'm so impressed and learning so much from them.
I wonder why people feel that their right to have an AR-15 supersedes the rights of children to not be shot and killed in school. I won't be convinced that this particular gone is necessary for anyone to have. Do I know people that have them? Yep. Do I think they are going to hurt people? Nope. But will they have pretty much any other gun at their disposal? Yes. So again, why are we so steadfastly clinging to the need to have this particular gun. I read an interesting article that really put it into perspective. It's popular. It's what the professionals use. And that is how many people make their purchasing decisions with anything and everything. They want to have what everyone else has. If a basketball player has a new tennis shoe, all the kids want that tennis shoe. Will they be a great ball player too, probably not, but boy the feel closer to that ball player.
Another post I saw recently basically insinuated that if you were for gun control at all then you were a gun hater or gun owner hater. Very short sighted and unequivocally untrue. I get it. I've gone hunting, I've shot guns. It is fun, but I can always live without an AR-15 and so could the victims of the crazed killer who got his hands on one and four or so other weapons in the year leading up to this. Does he need mental healthcare? I can assume he does. Hard to get that with our administration and it's supporters wanting to remove health care from those dang poor people sucking up our tax dollars, so now what? Should the FBI have caught the tip they received and done something about it? Absolutely. It's tragic that they didn't, but they are not the only one to blame in this equation. They missed it, we didn't help treat him, we didn't restrict his access to his guns, he found encouragement on websites on how to make his gun more deadly (not that he used it thank God), and we continue to publish his name and give him the fame he most likely desires. We are still moving this cycle in the same direction and no one wants to change one damn thing. It's always just talk and rhetoric and then the next shooting happens and it's the same bs discussion. Though the wonderful kids of this most recent shooting are speaking up this time and I'm so impressed and learning so much from them.
Will tightening laws stop people from getting guns illegally? Of course
not, but will it stop some of these shootings? Yes. And isn’t something better
than nothing? I admit, I’m not well versed in the complete or even semi complete
knowledge of guns. But I still see no legitimate need for these weapons. The arguments
keep coming back with no explanation other than they don’t believe it changes
or will change anything. These stricter states aren't strict enough in my opinion. What about gun laws scare people? What if we actually made people take a mental health test as well as gun safety and a test on their knowledge of guns while waiting for the background check? What if it took more than a conviction to send up a flag? What if you had 3-5 domestic assault calls but (as tends to happen in domestic assault) chargers aren't filed. Shouldn't that be enough to say, um no, you don't need a gun or we need more in depth background check.
I do not think that all guns should be banned, but I think simply doing nothing to stop these shootings is not the answer. Not at least discussing gun reform (whether we get it or not) is definitely not the answer. And though the gun isn’t
the only thing to stop it is one of the things to stop and I will not stop believing
that.
There is yet one more and the most famous argument that I used to say myself 10 years ago. The guns don’t kill people statement, which is overused and really historically wrong. They are deliberately used to kill people. They are accidentally used to kill people. But most importantly they were designed to kill people. The entire reason for their creation and invention is exactly how they are being used, so how do we separate that? We started with rocks, then rocks on sticks and etc...until we landed here with guns. All these things used in a fight, a fight to win. They were later used for sporting reasons, but down the road.
There is yet one more and the most famous argument that I used to say myself 10 years ago. The guns don’t kill people statement, which is overused and really historically wrong. They are deliberately used to kill people. They are accidentally used to kill people. But most importantly they were designed to kill people. The entire reason for their creation and invention is exactly how they are being used, so how do we separate that? We started with rocks, then rocks on sticks and etc...until we landed here with guns. All these things used in a fight, a fight to win. They were later used for sporting reasons, but down the road.
Again, it appears that it isn’t necessary, other than they don’t want their cool
toy taken away.
It wasn’t designed to protect for a military take over as some would
suggest. That again was an after thought, after guns had already been invented. The AR-15 itself was something designed for the military, but somehow landed in the hands of the general public. as it wasn't fully automatic.
Are those speaking out against gun control be right thought? Can it be a slippery slope where gun owners fear that all of
their guns will be taken away? Some on social media have told me that it’s
impossible to even recall the “millions” (scary) of AR-15s out there, so what
are they worried about? Not to mention, the AR-15 is so easily changeable, when we did attempt
to ban them, those changes were made (thanks loophole) and now they are back on
the shelves. I think as hard as it is just to get one type of gun out of
circulation in this country, those currently worried about losing all of their guns have nothing to worry about in their lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment