(English) Alabama shooting spree: why guns should stay out of civilians’ hands
Dit artikel is helaas nog niet beschikbaar in het Nederlands. Het is wel te lezen in English.
Laatste nieuws op Mobile Rev
Advertentie
Hire me
Dit artikel is helaas nog niet beschikbaar in het Nederlands. Het is wel te lezen in English.
Facebook comments:
I would love to see the actual stats on “friendly fire” vs. “legitimate defence”. ‘Bowling for Columbine’ showed some pretty staggering figures, if I’m recalling correctly.
Like I said on Twitter, a lot of pro-gun people just don’t see the correlation or can’t deduce the actual issue at hand.
The gun lobbyists are, like the others in their kind, too influential, and Joe sixpack can’t seem to know when someone’s giving their opinion or reporting (news)facts.
It’s also amazing how one time they wipe their asses with the constitution, and the other time they’d cut out the letter ‘o’ and make love to it. The fact that no one really has an exact clue on how to interpret the text, doesn’t help much either.
I still can’t figure this out: Dick Cheney shoots a lawyer-friend in the face and the lawyer ends up apologising… And, the discussion (in the media) never touched the idea of guns in capable hands…
And this is just one example.
I can’t say I’m agreeing with you, but I’m not disagreeing neither. There’s no exact science to this matter. What works for Switzerland, might not necessarily work for the U.S. or any other country. Not having guns in your own home, seems like the most sensible thing to do, but then you also take away the possibility of people being armed, which might make it so that bad guys break into homes more easily. The idea behind having a police force is actually to have a protecting presence around for the civilians. But they can’t be everywhere. So the idea of civilians being able to carry guns helps out there. It’s not the smartest move, but it does do the trick in some cases. Unfortunately, there’s the bad side of this where people get hurt because they’re not trained or irresponsible.
I could go on about the subject, but I’ll leave it here. :-)
Hmmm very good points to think about. Thx! What do you think of better education for gun owners ? Mandatory classes on self defence, safety and first aid ?
It’s not enough to be of a certain age to be allowed to do or own certain things. Responsibility comes with everything, the one more serious than the other.
So I would agree, if you allow people to own guns, they should be obligated to have sufficient training and pass the necessary tests. There was a time when people were handed their driver’s license just by going to city hall and ask for it. Now you have to practice and take a test. There are obvious reasons for this. Now, one could argue that car accidents still happen, or sometimes it’s not even an accident. Just last night someone got intentionally run over in Ghent. Should we then forbid cars? Of course not. A car is not a weapon by definition. A gun is. But it’s not easy to get that message or difference across to certain people.
Sadly, training isn’t everything. The tower sniper was a marine, as was Lee Harvey Oswald. A possible solution would be psychological (and other) tests on a regular basis for all gun owners. But then you would have to test anybody that might have (intentional or accidental) access to the weapon.
I’ve had some first aid training, but it has been too long. And I have no excuse for not picking it up again, but I do think it’s a good idea. I hate the idea of making things mandatory, but (re-)education seems to be needed in certain cases.
The car is a good example. The fact that guns are a weapon and thus are made to harm, cars are not after all, should increase the caution when handing out permits dramatically. Anyone wanting to own a gun should be trained and informed on all possible situations and consequences related to the use of that gun. Even when unintentional, the harm of a gun has severe consequences for society and other individuals than the owner and I think that warrents the government to extend regulation profound
I’ll respond to your ‘start’ and then off to bed. I just love these kind of discussions :)
I agree.
Information should be used wisely and we cannot rely on all humans to act properly. So we have to rely on authoritative organisations, in this case the government, to regulate gun ownership to a certain point. But setting rules should be accompanied by education on the matter. And it’s important that the education doesn’t limit itself to just owning a gun but to the broader spectrum of society and history.
I just remembered I was going to reply here , reread your comment and well.. I just completely agree with you ;) I think the keywords are education, education and education.
[...] vlotter, want het voelde natuurlijk aan. Ik heb dit recent terug ervaren toen ik reageerde op een blogpost van @rrradiogirrrl. Ik kende voldoende over de materie om zonder premeditatie een degelijk stukje [...]