For the last two weeks people have been arguing (rather ineffectively, I might add) in the opinions section of the school newspaper about the 2nd Amendment, gun control, and the expiring ban on the sale of assault weapons. I'd like to start off by saying that I don't disagree with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to have a gun to protect your family from the King of England or hunt dangerous or delicious animals, fine, whatever. Assault weapons, however, are another matter. It's ludicrous for anyone not in the military to have assault weapons. What could you possibly need them for that you wouldn't be able to accomplish with conventional firearms? Among the arguments I've heard in favor of allowing the assault weapons ban to expire is one that genuinely astonished me: "I've been using automatic weapons for hunting and recreational shooting for years." Now that's just lazy! Are you seriously telling me your aim is so bad that you can't take out a squirrel without whipping out a minigun? If you really need an AK to take out ordinary game, do yourself a favor. Sell your auto, go to an army surplus store, and get yourself a bolt-action .22. Spend a few weekends practicing with it until you become relatively consistent, and then start hunting again. There should be a lot more satisfaction in taking something down with a single, clean, lethal shot than in spraying rounds into the bushes, and (assuming it is a clean kill) whatever you're hunting will ostensibly suffer less from one shot to the head than from taking 17 shots to the torso and being left to bleed to death. You also won't be picking bullets out of your dinner.
The second argument I see fairly often is in favor of their use in defending your family. Again, by no means do you need that much firepower to stop an intruder! If you're genuinely concerned that you won't take down an attacker with a simple handgun, get a shotgun or a high-caliber Magnum and PRACTICE. When you use a gun that requires you to AIM, there's less of an opportunity for stray bullets to fly into other rooms and wound people you care about.
The last argument, besides being the weakest, is also the most presumptuous: "It's my constitutional right to own a gun; Congress can't tell me I can't have the one I want." That is beyond preposterous, and I think what amuses me the most about this is that the same people who push this viewpoint are some of the ones who push the war on drugs. If you said to them, "Well, what right is it of Congress to keep heroin or crack from me?", they'd likely cite corrupting moral influences, degradation of society, drugs making baby Jesus cry, etc, etc. Yet they can't see how those same arguments apply to them. Primary weapons of choice in drive-bys are typically automatics (Uzis, MAC 10s, other machine pistols). Drive-bys destroy the security and peace of a neighborhood. Automatics convey a feeling of invincibility ("You can't stop me, I got more bulllets!") that leads to further deaths. You wanna tell me that's not corrupting?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns at all; give me a well-made sword or knife any day of the week. However, if you're going to own a gun, you might as well be safe about it, and a part of that is learning the intricacies of firing it. Practice is vital for any firearm, both for improving accuracy and for ensuring that you don't hurt someone you care about. With a handgun or a standard rifle, there are numerous questions: "Do I have my target lined up?", "Am I steady?", "Am I braced to handle the kickback?", "Do I have a clean shot?", etc. With an assault weapon, the only concerns are "How many bullets?" and "Is the safety on?"
If you want to fire randomly into the distance without regard, play HALO. If you want to be a responsible firearm owner, pass on the assault weapons.
1 comment:
First off, nice title.
We had a discussion on this in my Law and Society class the other day. Now imagine me and 23 liberals in a room talking about guns. I whole heartedly accept the 2nd amendment, but when you break the language down it does say that you have the right to "bear arms". That taken very literally could me that you could have a Walther PPK or a Javelin [the throwing stick of the RPG, your pick] at your disposal all for the low low price of US citizenship. To me the "literalists" who believe that God and George Washington wanted them to have a gun on them are ignorant at best. I actually heard it phrased like this too, which I thought was cute because Washington had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights and God...well take your stance on existence and then ask why he would give a rats ass about if we did some of the work for him and exterminated ourselves with submachine guns.
Sorry that was a tangent, but here's the meat. Military issue or even substandard automatic rifles should not be in the hands of any person, civil or otherwise. I don't believe that little Timmy needs to take down that 12 point buck with his M-4 carbine. The logic behind using an automatic for hunting escapes me, like you said PRACTICE with a bolt action or if you're really a shitty shot get yourself a Shotgun and some buckshot, scatter it across the pine covered forest.
I agree with you Mr. Miller.
Keep up the good work.
- Cody -
Post a Comment