We all need to realize that allowing people to purchase and own AR-15s is just as much social engineering as not allowing them. Either way creates a certain sort of society, which is pretty much the definition of social engineering.
The problem is not pro-gun per se. The problem is that the current manifestation of the pro-gun position is absolutist. They will not even allow the most common-sensical of restrictions. In their current view, any restrictions at all are intolerable.
That sort of absolutism is foolish. No right is absolute. Freedom of speech can be restricted in certain circumstances. And that is the first amendment, which probably indicates it’s the one deemed most necessary by the authors.
What does a” well-regulated militia” imply? That the militia should be regulated. Which means restricted. And restrictions = laws restricting ownership of guns in certain circumstances. That’s what the Second Amendment states. Yes, the Supreme Court recently ruled that this guarantees the rights of individuals to own guns. But the Supreme Court also ruled that “separate but equal” was perfectly fine, and that fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owners even if that meant forcible removal from a free state (i.e., Dred Scott).
The fact is, in states like RI, you are more apt to be shot by a stranger. In a state with very liberal gun laws like TX or LA (the latter leading the US in gun deaths, btw) you are more apt to be shot by someone you know. Since one generally spends more time among people you know, your chance of being shot goes up when you are surrounded by gun owners.
That’s pretty straightforward. Also, gun owners are 4.5 more times likely to be shot, and 4.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun than a non-owner.
The sum of these two facts means that guns do not make you safer. Rather the opposite, in fact.
In addition, allowing the ownership of assault-style weapons and large capacity magazines increases the odds that a shooter will kill more people in a rampage. So why allow them? Give the kid in Newtown a revolver or even two instead of an assault-style weapon, and suddenly, the ability to kill 26 people plummets.
Yes, there are bad people out there. Yes, they have guns. Why do they have guns? Because they’re easy to get. Background checks can be circumvented easily. One can buy most anything at a gun show. The guy who just set the fire and shot the two fire fighters was a felon, who should not have been able to own a gun. Yet, he had (or got) one. How did he do that? Because guns are easy to get. Why are they easy to get? Because the pro-gun lobby refuses to consider even the slightest of restrictions.
Look, I grew up with guns, in a time and a place where not having guns in the house was the aberration. I understand their legitimate uses. Which means I understand their non-legitimate uses as well. Being able to pump out 50 rounds of high-velocity bullets is not a legitimate use for anyone who is not in the military, or in certain cases for the police.
Let someone own their semi-automatic pistol. Fine. If it makes him feel safer, even though the evidence points in the other direction, fine. It’s the SUV fallacy: just because it feels safer doesn’t mean it is.
But let’s also face facts: too much of gun ownership is not about ‘safety'; it’s about being macho. I trust everyone has seen this ad by now, but just in case…
When I first saw this, I thought it might be a liberal mock-up. Turns out it’s real.
Excuse me, I have to go puke.