XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns
From: murff@warlock.org
On Sun, 11 May 2014 19:10:16 -0400, Scout wrote:
> "Murff" wrote in message
> news:lknpbs$q4k$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Sat, 10 May 2014 19:35:46 -0400, Scout wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> telling you to piss off
>> ...
>>> it's my fucking country and I
>>> have no desire to see it screwed up as you have yours.
>>
>> You seem to be getting terrbly upset. Are you *sure* other people -
>> family members included - are safe for you to be let loose with a
>> firearm ?
>
> Well, you seem to feel you have the right to call for us to screw up our
> country as you've allowed yours to be screwed up, and all because
> freedom makes you 'uncomfortable'.
Erm, no. What "seems" to you says much about you, but probably not good
to delve too deeply there, eh ?
You talk about "screwed up countries". And yet you assume that the only
way that any sort of firearms responsibility can happen is through
government action. Action which you instinctively mistrust because it
comes from government. Why do you keep voting for them, then ? Or isn't
America a democracy anymore ?
I'm not calling the US "screwed up" because it contains many people who
consider that they need to carry for personal protection: whereas in the
UK we *really* *don't* feel that we need to do that. Different places,
different cultures. It reflects poorly on you, by the way, that you
consider the UK "screwed up" because it doesn't do American culture.
But ignoring that...
*All* the gun owners I've met, in the UK and the US, take it upon
themselves to learn about what they do, to be safe, and to be competent.
They're responsible. Same goes for Israel. But I've met a tiny fraction
of US gun owners. In the UK to some extent making sure that owners *are*
responsible is sub-contracted to the police, via the licencing system.
But if you're not going to have a government mechanism to support
responsibility, then what ? It is possible that absolutely all legal
owners in the US are responsible. That they practice. That they take
classes. Possible, but I don't think likely. What that means is that in
the US other peoples' freedom with respect to firearms imposes on me to
accept that there is some incompetent swivel-eyed yahoo posing a risk to
*me* and mine. You just want me to accept that. I find it uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable. Not "ban it". Uncomfortable - and hence happier to observe
from a safe distance. What happened to American ideas of freedom all of a
sudden that there is such a big problem with me having that opinion ?
And I'm not "calling for" anything. In particular I'm not calling for
anything in the US. Apart from anything else, the pro-gun and the gun-
banning lobbies are too busy yelling at each other over there for
anything else to be heard.
But what I am saying is that if you're espousing carry laws whilst at the
same time losing the excellent former practice Mr Sandman described,
regarding firearms education as a normal service to youngsters in
schools, then you're letting politics get in the way of sense. As a
result you're at serious risk of throwing away a culture of safety.
Personally, and the way I've brought up my sons, safety is paramount.
Losing that culture of firearm safety is a justification for losing your
guns.
> So why shouldn't I tell you like it is when you are trying to advocate
> misdirected infringements in our rights even as you claim such
> misdirected infringements shouldn't be allowed.
Because you're not. You're ranting, and swearing (or were - I note that
you have stopped - thank you for getting back to civil discussion) at me
because of what you *think* I'm saying from an anti-gun American
perspective, rather than what I am saying from a gun-owning British one.
When we went through the practical-use aspect with Mr Sandman, there was
a lot less difference than appeared at first glance.
--
Murff...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
