One Last Thing On Simplistic Solutions

Before I get back to porn stories I want to make one last point about the problem facing the citizens of the country in terms of violence.

Many people who have never even shot a gun think that banning guns will solve the problem or at least lessen it.

It is that type of simplistic thinking that has intensified problems instead of solving them many times in our history.

Prohibition was just such an idea, we all know how that turned out.

The war on drugs, we know how that turned out as well

If the problem were as simple as raising the price of bullets to 50 dollars per round, you would get the same problem you have with drugs, its easy to load your own bullets and its cheap, cheaper than buying them and paying the 500% tax the government puts on them, and if people start making them they will sell them. When the demand is there the market will fill it.

But who among us really thinks that banning any gun or bullet or anything else will alleviate this problem, certainly not anyone who has given it proper thought, as I stated before when someone is willing to die in the process of killing others laws against guns or anything else aren’t a deterrent.  I don’t profess to know what the answer is but I do know what it is not.  Sacrificing more liberty to create the false illusion of safety is clearly not the answer.

And don’t forget there are people alive today who would with all certainty be dead if not for law abiding gun owners, Melissa Wolf is one of those people, in this case I was the gun owner.  It doesn’t make me a hero, it doesn’t deserve any recognition beyond recognizing that because I have the right to legally carry a firearm she is still alive, it is that constitutional right that deserves the recognition, not me, I was simply being a friend and a man.  Please don’t advocate depriving me of that right.

13 Replies to “One Last Thing On Simplistic Solutions”

  1. rawalex

    I’ll take a shot at it, and see how it goes. Please note that I have shot plenty of guns in my life, and I have also seen the damage done when humans get in the way.

    For me, the logic used to support guns is pretty much the same as trickle down economics (aka voodoo economics). The concept is that if you support more guns at the top, you will have more safety at the bottom. The effects of more guns will trickle down to a safer society for all.

    News flash: It doesn’t work. Back in the early days of the US, in the “wild west” everyone had a gun. Murders, shootings, and general crime was at an all time high. Consider this:

    :”1886 San Diego( the year Wyatt came to SD): The homicide rate was 53 homicides per 100,000 residents( SD County Coroner’s Report). 2013 FBI data shows a SD homicide rate of 2.9 homicides per 100,000 residents. The homicide rate in 1886 was therefore 18 times higher than today.”

    This of course during a period when most of the US population carried a weapon.

    You only have to look today in certain communities (I won’t say where, you can figure it out) where handguns, crime, drugs, and gang lifestyle are prevalent. The number of people getting killed, shot, maimed… it’s pretty insane.

    So then you have to ask where they get the weapons from. Well, since many of them would not pass background checks (reasons from underage to past criminal activities and so on), they have to obtain their guns on the black market, or at gun shows, or through private sales. So their source is, well, you. Illegal weapons are generally just legal weapons that have been stolen, sold to brokers, or sold on the internet.

    The more legal weapons you put in the top, the more ILLEGAL weapons come out the other end. Cause and effect, plain and simple.

    Moreover, let’s be fair here. I think you should be allowed to own a gun. ONE gun. Singular. The gun should be registered to you, should have a lock that limits it’s use to you, and only you, and you should not be allowed to sell it on, except under very restrictive conditions including having the government as a middle man for the sale including a cooling off period. You should not be able to buy a weapon that can load more than 6 bullets, you should not be able to buy a weapon that can be reloaded quickly (loading should require a few minuntes, not a few seconds like dropping out a clip and stuffing another one in) and so on. Your right to bear arms would remain, but the arms that you could bare would be limited to what is sane.

    I cannot imagine anyone justifying why they need an assault rifle. They aren’t good for hunting (they don’t have the power to properly and cleanly kill game, unless you are shooting squirrels), they aren’t really good for home protection (they aren’t easily controlled in confined spaces), and you cannot “conceal carry” something that large (unless you wear a trench coat). Those guns are made for one thing, and one thing only: Killing a lot of people as quickly as possible on a battle field.

    If you want your gun rights respected, it’s worth working to find a way to respect my right not to get killed.

    “”Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the “unalienable rights” which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.”

    Life is important more than anything. Too many guns makes it way more likely that I would lose my life. This is the stuff BEFORE the second amendment. Let’s respect ALL of the constitution, not just the parts we like.

  2. BT

    “I’ll take a shot at it ….. ” Rawalex, that was genius.
    I grew up in the country around kids whose dads were outdoorsmen, who hunted and fished and owned plenty of guns of all types. It was a right of passage when my friends got their first BB guns, then pellet guns, then 22 rifle followed by their first shot gun. I shot off my fair share of 22’s and shotguns as a kid. While my Dad was not a hunter, he owned a pistol, although it was kept unloaded in a box in their bedroom closet and I never saw any ammo. It would’ve only protected our family if he’d thrown it at the bad guy and hit dead on in the head. I guess what I’m getting at is that I never had a problem with guns or people who owned guns.

    The culture was different – I’m sounding like an old man. To this day, I don’t understand why your every day Joe needs a military weapon.

    That said, I don’t pretend to think it put an end to events like Orlando. You may lessen the carnage – a guy carrying half a dozen loaded pistols probably can’t get off as many rounds as he can with an assault rifle, but in a packed night club he could still do a lot of damage, especially if he’s a crack shot like this guy.

    What I’d like to say is that I think economic advantage goes a long way towards solving some of these issues. Years ago, Ireland was a hot bed of terrorism, with car bombings and assassinations. In the late 90’s, the country made real overtures to improve its economy, bringing in pharmaceutical companies and tech companies, like Lucent and others. All of a sudden, everyone was working and working at pretty well paying jobs compared to what had been available in the past. You know what? The violence ended. When you’re making a little cash and you can spend time with your best girl or drink a pint in the pub with your buddies, you’re a lot less inclined to strap a bomb to your chest or shoot up a night club. I also think the isolation that comes from a loss of real community that has been replaced by virtual community lends to it. Too many of us are sitting in our basements online, from innocuous activities like Words With Friends to virulent chat rooms. If you’re bowling with your buddies, going to the movies with your girl, out to dinner with your neighbor, its tough to find the hatred to want to blow up the world.

    To Mike’s point, there are no simple solutions. This is one that is beyond my usual first reaction to wade in and say I no better and have an answer. I don’t.

  3. LurkingReader

    @rawalex

    Ok so we ban guns… are crock pots & lawn fertilizer next? Stood behind a guy at the pharmacy trying to purchase Sudafed and his usual allergy medicine … to combat meth users this law biding citizen was forced to choose treating his sinus infection or the underlying allergies.

    Would a ban mean seizure & a ticket for anyone caught with a gun or some modified version of the 5-10-20 mandatory jail sentences Jeb Bush signed into law for Florida?

    If we can’t keep phones and other contraband out of the confined/controlled environments of jails & prison then how can we expect to a weapons ban to be more than some useless words and media headlines?

  4. Karmafan

    I’m with rawalex in that its OK to own a gun legally but you do not need assault weapons and machine guns. The only thing those guns are useful for is to kill lots of people very quickly. Yes our forefathers created the Constitution and included the right to bear arms but that was at a time when guns fired 1 ball and then it took tyou a minute to reload the gun to fire one ball, etc… I’ve been around guns most of my life as well as owned them. Up until 2-3 years ago I owned a .45 automatic and regularly went to the range to fire it so I’m not some yuppie scum against guns that has never been near one. I’m just someone with common sense when it comes to assault rifles and 100+ people being shot.

  5. rawalex

    The answer for you is pretty simple: Stop trying to make everything black and white, all or nothing.

    Read my post. I didn’t say ban guns. I said make it much harder to have them, limit them to points that are reasonable for their intended purpose, and make people responsible for them and their resale. Smart locks and other tools that limit a weapon to only work for a certain individual would be a big step in the right direction.

    As for your crock pots and fertilizer, the answer is always simple… they have valid uses not related to killing people. Guns, especially AR-15 style assault weapons, are intended to kill people and nothing else.

    A weapon “ban” is actually pretty simple: If you are caught with a gun, you go to jail – and it’s a felony, not a misdemeanor. If you use a gun to commit a crime, you rot in jail for a long time (like, double the sentence for the underlying crime).

    Oh, and require that ammo is sold only through licensed dealers, who must ask to see your permit, that your permit must be verified, and must match the weapon that you own. Serial number each bullet if needed and register every sale if you must. Do what is needed to assure that the 2nd amendment is respected, but don’t make it an open field for any idiot to arm themselves to the teeth.

  6. LurkingReader

    @rawalex

    This is not one side of the fence or the other, with every suggested solution 1001 questions pop up.

    We already have federal weapons enhancement for crimes with some states going beyond the minimum i.g. the Florida 5-10-20 mentioned. Brandish a gun as a threat is 5 years, show it to rob someone is 10 and shoot it whether anyone is injured or not is 20 ON TOP of the underlying charges. Within two years they had to drop the no concurrent time for weapons enhancement convictions when prison overcrowding exceeded federal max. Far from picking on you I’m seriously considering the ideas you took the time to share and asking a few of the 1001 questions.

    How do we stop black-market weapons & ammo purchases? Jail and felony convictions are not top of the priority list for guys like Mateen & suicidal maniacs.

  7. MikeSouth

    I appreciate the intelligent level of discourse here without resorting to personal attacks, I get what Raw Alex is saying even and on some levels I agree but the bigger picture id that guns aren’t just for hunting, they are also for protection and as George Washington noted they are for protection from a government that becomes tyrannical.

    The second amendment exists because the formation of this country was dependent on the right of the people to take up arms and force-ably overthrow the government and replace it with a better one.

    You could argue that we no longer need that right but until it is removed from the constitution by a 2/3rds majority AND ratification by 3/4 of the states it isn’t going anyplace, and nor should it in my not so humble opinion. It is kind of the thing that guarantees a last ditch effort to save us should our government become out of control. It also operates as a check on government power, There is a reason why despots almost always enact gun control, removing the citizens ability to fight back empowers tyranny.

    I do support expanding background checks to not allow people on the watch list to purchase guns, hat makes sense. I could support requiring training in order to have a concealed carry permit, but ONLY if that training is NOT performed by the government, it should be a neutral third party. I would love to see the day when this whole argument is moot, but I don’t think even then I would be in support of disarming the citizenry, that has never ended well.

  8. brendachicago

    Washington never said that. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/20/facebook-posts/did-george-washington-offer-support-individual-gun/
    The reason they wanted everyone to have guns was because youre in northermer New York, the british or french are attacking . You were expected to fight them off, until the 6 months to a year it took the army to get there.
    The founding father wanted no one rising up ,they all were rich men with shit to lose. When Shay rebelled it was stepped on by Washington and that was with muskets. vrs muskets. I think you are on any type of watch list no gun for you and expanded background checks. Most want that, the lie is they want to take away our guns. People forget Obama signed the law that you can now carry in some national parks.

  9. MikeSouth

    yes I am aware but he and other framers of the Consitution did make similar statements and even wrote about it and it isnt far fetched, as I pointed out they had just led a revolution that overthrew the government and they were adamant that citizens be able to do so. Hamilton wrote about citizen militias, and the need for them in the event that state or federal government became a problem, Thomas Jefferson wrote that every so often a revolution was actually necessary to keep government in check. When they made the right to bear arms number two of ten they knew exactly what they were doing.

  10. Dirty Bob

    Mike, while your comment that “I do support expanding background checks to not allow people on the watch list to purchase guns” makes sense, that is not a caveat as a “watch list exemption” is not a part of everyone’s right to bear OR NOT to bear arms – which really gives legs to the idea that a CAREFULLY WORDED update, or modernization, is long overdue. On another note, the term Assault Rifle pretty much sums up what it is – a method of assault – and certainly not something the Founding Fathers would have agreed would be a necessity back in the day…

  11. MikeSouth

    I actually have a problem with watch list and that is that the government maintains the watch list and they are not exactly honest about who is on that list or why, yes it makes sense that you shouldnt be able to buy a gun if you are on the watch list but who and why is on that list is in many cases very arbitrary and what if the governmenrt decides to put all NRA members on the watch list, or all christians or even all muslims. The arguement that weapons today could not be foreseen by our forefathers is garbage, there had been attempts to ban citizens from owning muskets before we were even an independent country. Banning a weapon because of how it looks is retarded. Our founding fathers were a LOT more suspicious of a federal government and its motives than we are and they, in turn provided us with a number of checks on that government, the last resort being the ability to mount an armed rebellion.

  12. MikeSouth

    Finally I am not going to change anyones mind, nor will anyone change mine but I do like to understand well reasoned opinions that are different than mine, like RawAlex put forth, his opinion is every bit as reasonable as mine and in then end If it were out up RA and I to draft legislation on the issue we could come to a reasonable compromise that might improve the situation. Why is it too uch to ask the same of our representatives in government

  13. rawalex

    That answer is very simple: They are trying to get re-elected, not to actually do anything useful. They take stands that keep them “tied to the party base”, so you have Republicans blocking every attempt to regulate guns in any manner, and Democrats pushing for abolitionist style moves that just won’t fly. Neither side is doing anything beneficial for the public, but they are appealing to the electorate that keeps the congress critters in congress longer. Term limits (2 terms maximum) would go a long way to resolving the issue.

Leave a Reply