- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,914
- Reaction score
- 1,954
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Let's be honest about what a firearm is.
I would define a firearm, in the context that it is most often used, as the most efficient way for an individual to project force. We hear firearms compared to cars, hammers and knives, but at the end of the day, all of those devices have legitimate other primary uses and when it comes to projecting force are much less efficient. Cars, while powerful and capable of causing tremendous damage are pretty hard to use to attack or defend ("Quick honey, someone is trying to break in and climb through the window,get the car!"). Hammers and knives, while fantastic weapons in their own right, usually require that the user place themselves in the vicinity of their victim, thereby being open to retaliation with the same or different weapon.
When you think about society we are surrounded by other people, some of which share our interests, other who do not.
When trying to convince people to do what you want, you have two ways to do it, through influence or force.
Removal of the firearm from society, (if it were possible), removes only the efficiency with which a person can project force, not the desire to do so. Since (I assert) it is impossible to remove firearms in our culture, even to a significant degree, their removal only denies those that would abide by a law to surrender their firearms their most efficient means of defending yourself from another who is using force in an attempt to persuade you.
The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so. We should keep in mind that laws are often a first step in shaping culture which, in most cases has a much larger effect on society.
I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.
Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.
I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.
To that anti-firearm crowd....
The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.
Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.
I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.
Thoughts?
I would define a firearm, in the context that it is most often used, as the most efficient way for an individual to project force. We hear firearms compared to cars, hammers and knives, but at the end of the day, all of those devices have legitimate other primary uses and when it comes to projecting force are much less efficient. Cars, while powerful and capable of causing tremendous damage are pretty hard to use to attack or defend ("Quick honey, someone is trying to break in and climb through the window,get the car!"). Hammers and knives, while fantastic weapons in their own right, usually require that the user place themselves in the vicinity of their victim, thereby being open to retaliation with the same or different weapon.
When you think about society we are surrounded by other people, some of which share our interests, other who do not.
When trying to convince people to do what you want, you have two ways to do it, through influence or force.
Removal of the firearm from society, (if it were possible), removes only the efficiency with which a person can project force, not the desire to do so. Since (I assert) it is impossible to remove firearms in our culture, even to a significant degree, their removal only denies those that would abide by a law to surrender their firearms their most efficient means of defending yourself from another who is using force in an attempt to persuade you.
The conversation, imo, shouldn't be about the right to own a firearm, but the conditions under which we should do so. We should keep in mind that laws are often a first step in shaping culture which, in most cases has a much larger effect on society.
I think responsible owners should step up and persuade their fellow firearm owners to be accountable for their weapons. I think that owners should be responsible for any and ALL weapons in their custody (within reasonable limitations of course). Any weapon that falls into the hands of a child or burglar, where little effort was required to take possession of it, the owner of that weapon should be severely reprimanded.
Now I'm sure this last paragraph will get many a firearms owner up in arms, but before you you go on the offensive, I didn't lay out everything I think, nor do I have all the solutions. At the end of the day I'm saying we should be open to a conversation about the best way to balance out rights to own a firearm against the right to be reasonably sure that your firearms won't end up in the hands of criminals or family members who intend to use them to cause harm to the innocent.
I have a home defense shotgun, mounted on the wall in a locked restraining device. It requires a 4 digit button combination to remove. It takes about 3-5 sec for me to get to it if my wife or I need it. I also have a pistol safe that requires about 4-6 sec to open and allows my choice of 5 fully loaded and ready to rock pistols.
To that anti-firearm crowd....
The failure of many a lawful gun owner to engage in a meaningful conversation about creating laws that prevent the purchasing of firearms without background checks and close loopholes or penalize those that fail to maintain custody of their weapons is a legitimate fear that any concession, no matter how much sense it makes may result in other concessions that make less sense.
Both sides should be working toward concessions that make living with firearms, something that is deeply ingrained in our culture and unlikely to go away, as safe as possible.
I've chosen a fairly centrist position and as such I expect to be attacked from the extreme on both sides.....The irony is, it is the extreme on both sides, in my opinion, that prevent us from making practical laws and changes in culture that would prevent many of the tragedies that we see today.
Thoughts?
