Tweet
I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that NightAngel's point about noone needing "assault rifles" (*) is a counter to the often-stated argument 'but I need it!'
The type of gun I think of when I think of the term 'assault rifle' is one which has an extremely rapid rate of fire, and frequently uses fast and/or powerful bullets.
(*) imprecise, I know.
Such guns aren't needed for hunting, and using them for self-defence would include a high risk of collateral damage. Especially in the hands of someone who doesn't treat guns with the respect and professionalism they require.
The only reasons I can think of for Joe or Jane Average to need or want an assault rifle are:
(a) admiring gorgeous engineering. Okay, I can buy that one. I've been known to study a bridge or a train engine, I can see people wanting to study guns.
(b) admiring the craftsmanship. See a.
(c) anticipating social collapse. I can buy that one, too.
(d) you anticipate multiple well-armed and potentially armoured criminals attacking you/your family/your property, and you either don't care about collateral damage or are thoroughly trained in the use of such weapons.
(e) you seek status among your peers, and ownership of such a weapon is a status symbol in your environment.
(f) the silicon chip inside your head is tuned to overload, and you wanna shoot (oo -oo-oooot) the whole day down.(*)
(*) Taken from 'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats
Now, people like me, and others on 'this side' of the gun debate, see d as unlikely to occur to the vast majority of people. Most people on 'this side' of the gun debate see c as unlikely to occur - me, I'm more dubious about that.
I see e as insufficient reason to own such a weapon - because I've known a lot of status-seeking people, and they tend not to hold their symbols in enough respect to handle a dangerous symbol like this safely.
To me, an accident by an e-reason person or their friends, or an f event, are much, much more likely (in my part of the world) than either social collapse or a home invasion by a large and well-armed band of thieves. Thus, social risk management argues that society is probably better served by keeping such guns under control than otherwise.
However, because I recognise that I'm not as well-informed about Joe or Jane Average's individual situation as they are, I'm willing to accept that Joe or Jane Average can have whatever gun they wish, provided they have proof of training and responsible handling of the gun.
And before you say 'but people can have cars they don't need' - people have to show proof of training in the use of such cars. I wish they had to show proof of more training, and of responsible handling. In my ideal world, we'd have excellent public transport and more stringent licensing for driving. But we do have licensing before you can drive.
The type of gun I think of when I think of the term 'assault rifle' is one which has an extremely rapid rate of fire, and frequently uses fast and/or powerful bullets.
(*) imprecise, I know.
Such guns aren't needed for hunting, and using them for self-defence would include a high risk of collateral damage. Especially in the hands of someone who doesn't treat guns with the respect and professionalism they require.
The only reasons I can think of for Joe or Jane Average to need or want an assault rifle are:
(a) admiring gorgeous engineering. Okay, I can buy that one. I've been known to study a bridge or a train engine, I can see people wanting to study guns.
(b) admiring the craftsmanship. See a.
(c) anticipating social collapse. I can buy that one, too.
(d) you anticipate multiple well-armed and potentially armoured criminals attacking you/your family/your property, and you either don't care about collateral damage or are thoroughly trained in the use of such weapons.
(e) you seek status among your peers, and ownership of such a weapon is a status symbol in your environment.
(f) the silicon chip inside your head is tuned to overload, and you wanna shoot (oo -oo-oooot) the whole day down.(*)
(*) Taken from 'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats
Now, people like me, and others on 'this side' of the gun debate, see d as unlikely to occur to the vast majority of people. Most people on 'this side' of the gun debate see c as unlikely to occur - me, I'm more dubious about that.
I see e as insufficient reason to own such a weapon - because I've known a lot of status-seeking people, and they tend not to hold their symbols in enough respect to handle a dangerous symbol like this safely.
To me, an accident by an e-reason person or their friends, or an f event, are much, much more likely (in my part of the world) than either social collapse or a home invasion by a large and well-armed band of thieves. Thus, social risk management argues that society is probably better served by keeping such guns under control than otherwise.
However, because I recognise that I'm not as well-informed about Joe or Jane Average's individual situation as they are, I'm willing to accept that Joe or Jane Average can have whatever gun they wish, provided they have proof of training and responsible handling of the gun.
And before you say 'but people can have cars they don't need' - people have to show proof of training in the use of such cars. I wish they had to show proof of more training, and of responsible handling. In my ideal world, we'd have excellent public transport and more stringent licensing for driving. But we do have licensing before you can drive.
Comment