A gun-owning friend of mine who read Mass Murder’s Bright Future had this to say:
One of the things that I think warps peoples view is not understanding people who are avid hunters and shooters. I have read time and time again about people who had a cache of weapons or ammo only to find out the person had a couple of handguns and a few hundred rounds of ammo. To a person who doesn’t shoot 200 or even 500 rounds of ammo may seem like a lot to an avid shooter that is an hour or two at the range on a Saturday morning. For some owning dozens of guns is a pretty normal thing. I hope this doesn’t make you think less of me but I have ordered A LOT of ammunition through the internet.
The reality is gun ownership is on the rise in the country and violent crime is on the decline. There is not much political will to really change gun laws. The assault weapons ban ended and while there was a prediction of blood in the streets crime rates still went down. Politicians know there is nothing to win and quite a bit to loose. It seems to only play well with progressives I know a LOT of liberals who are pro-gun or at least agnostic to them.
The reality is that laws only effect those who follow them ask me some time about the ridiculous hoops one has to jump through. It defies logic. The criminals don’t jump though the hoops. The mentally ill don’t either.
The world isn’t safe it is a fact but I personally am not willing to give up any freedom for the perception of safety.”
This exchange about gun rights interested me:
“This was an otherwise law-abiding person who snapped. This wasn’t a case of a known criminal or known wacko getting guns when he shouldn’t have. Its the risk associated with living in a free, armed society. Yes, incidents like this are tragic, but i’m not going to give up more of my rights just because a couple people died in a random act of violence.”
Response: “maybe if it wasn’t so easy for these law abiding people who can potentially snap to have guns, or if there wasn’t a culture of paranoia making people believe they need guns to be safe, this wouldn’t have happened. You are being stubborn about what you perceive to be an essential right, while people continue to die in these “random tragic acts of violence”, and other countries who have stricter gun controls laugh at you. This is not the Revolutionary war, or the zombie apocalypse, or any of these scenarios you secretly hope happen so you can justify your ownership of firearms. You’ll never use your gun for anything useful, you’ll never be the hero in your own Rambo fantasy where you save the neighborhood. Sorry to shatter your dreams.”
I love that rant about Rambo! I think it is unfair, but also not completely untrue either. Here’s another one about the incredible disconnect between gun owners and others:
“If I had been there, he would have been neutralized within seconds. I do not go to the movies because my legal gun is not welcome. Sure, take away more rights. That will solve everything.”
Response: “You are scary.”
I’m glad to see Obama has started talking about guns. Discussion is good.
September 7th, 2013 at 1:48 AM
Wonderful. I agree.
July 27th, 2012 at 10:49 AM
You skirt seriousness and absurdity so deftly as to leave one reeling. : ) Keep up the good work.
July 27th, 2012 at 8:36 AM
As your best friend (badass category) I feel obliged to chime in, and, I’m sorry Jeremy, I’m with Bill O’Reilly on this issue; “nothing could be done.” It’s that simple. Just like that mass grenade killing at that Starbucks a couple years ago when that guy used all those hand grenades to blow up a Starbucks. It’s the way of the world. Don’t politicize this. Remember, it’s just like that other guy who RPGed that subway station and rigged the entrances with claymores, and then hopped into his attack helicopter and blew-up an REI. Nothing can be done about it. You can’t regulate that sort of thing from happening. It’s life. There are hand grenades in this world, and bad men who go crazy, and you can’t stop them from getting together and doing evil and blowing up an REI. (ok, semi-evil. I do poopoo such safe havens for such unlimited douchebaggery.) The point is it’s a constitutional right to bar arms, and that includes my attack helicopter, and anyone who thinks I shouldn’t have my hellfire missiles is obviously a godless obama loving socialist who wants to take away my freedoms.
It’s a slippery fricking slope, and there is not room for gray or compromise unless that gray is a confederate uniform and that compromise is of 1850.
And that is why I don’t go to movie theaters.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:56 PM
I don’t have time to really back up this comment with discourse as I’m at work, but I essentially just want to point out that while much of the more vitriolic discourse does tend to be ‘owners v. others’, this isn’t strictly a binary debate. There is nuance to the geography of these stances. I am both a hunter and a gun owner, but there is very little about the “pro-gun” lobby that resonates with me.
I also really appreciate the Revolutionary War/zombie/Rambo hyperbole. Kate and I had a similar (though not so strongly worded) conversation last night.
July 27th, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Paul, that seems entirely reasonable to me, and you should take me hunting sometime, and we can talk about this nuance.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that some people like the way guns make them feel, which I think is partly the attraction for a crazy person. For years, I like the way lifting weights made me feel, and I kept in shape on the off chance that I would be called upon to work extreme acts of valor and rescue damsels in distress.
Also, I used to fight my friends in pellet guns wars. Often I would hold my gun as I watched TV, make action noises, the works…guns are not attractive only for their utility.
July 27th, 2012 at 7:03 PM
Small game season is most conducive to conversation. Plan to visit between Oct. 13 & Feb. 23 and I’ll take you out. Or come whenever and we can shoot skeet.
On a separate note (and partially in response and provication of Whit below), is the Constitution really a sacred inerrant document? I would argue that it was written within a particular historical context by men (and only men) with their own vices and proclivities. Certainly I enjoy many of the freedoms that it guarantees (and don’t mean to diminish that), and I agree with many, if not all, of its principles, but I am not convinced of the document’s infallibility as a whole.