![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've always been in favor of gun control, and fairly strict gun control at that. I grew up in an area where hunters would drive by on the way to national forest land and shoot at our "No Tresspassing" signs for practice; deer were ambivalent neighbors that were to be acknowledged and driven past, not shot. I feel a small-caliber handgun is the most firepower necessary for self-defense; even that is powerful enough to give an attacker a brain injury or sucking chest wound, with less chance of collateral damage or losing control from the kick. The idea of citizens having military-grade weapons for a "well-prepared militia" strikes me as nothing more than archaic with modern warfare. So I'd support any law that would usefully1 reduce the number of firearms in circulation.
Yet I've taken up a sport that involves shooting things with a deadly weapon. How do I reconcile this?
First. The hunting matter. Hunting with a gun is hardly fair. Neither is bow hunting, but at least all the kinetic energy in an arrow came from the shooter - through rather a lot of mechanical advantage, on a compound bow, but from the shooter nevertheless. (Someone who hunted strictly with spears would be a hunter I'd truly respect.) Also, arrows need as much or more care and attention as a bow, and last for hundreds of uses; bullets come in a box and are gone after the shot.
Second. Street violence. This seems to be the primary focus of gun control, or at least its publicity campaigns. Heh - good luck concealing a bow and quiver, no matter how baggy your pants are. Enforcing a drug deal with a bow would be, while amusing, useless.
Third. Child safety. This is the other big attack angle for gun control activists, with horror stories of children finding loaded guns. I think gun safes and/or locks are an acceptable resolution to this, but my weapon of choice has no such danger. It takes a considerable amount of strength and leverage to string my bow, and an unstrung bow is no more dangerous than a table leg. (Broadheads are another matter, and should be treated with at least as much child security as kitchen knives.) It's not difficult to injure oneself with a bow, either stringing or strung, but it is difficult to make that injury life-threatening. Loose strings pose a choking hazard, I suppose, but really, what doesn't?
So. Those are my current justifications for the slightly-conflicting viewpoints I find myself in. They've been bouncing around a bit, and I think writing them out has settled them for the most part.
click
1 I'm vaguely aware with the idea that making guns illegal or licensed on paper does very little to get them off the streets. But I'm not aware of any attempt to control guns at the point of production.
Yet I've taken up a sport that involves shooting things with a deadly weapon. How do I reconcile this?
First. The hunting matter. Hunting with a gun is hardly fair. Neither is bow hunting, but at least all the kinetic energy in an arrow came from the shooter - through rather a lot of mechanical advantage, on a compound bow, but from the shooter nevertheless. (Someone who hunted strictly with spears would be a hunter I'd truly respect.) Also, arrows need as much or more care and attention as a bow, and last for hundreds of uses; bullets come in a box and are gone after the shot.
Second. Street violence. This seems to be the primary focus of gun control, or at least its publicity campaigns. Heh - good luck concealing a bow and quiver, no matter how baggy your pants are. Enforcing a drug deal with a bow would be, while amusing, useless.
Third. Child safety. This is the other big attack angle for gun control activists, with horror stories of children finding loaded guns. I think gun safes and/or locks are an acceptable resolution to this, but my weapon of choice has no such danger. It takes a considerable amount of strength and leverage to string my bow, and an unstrung bow is no more dangerous than a table leg. (Broadheads are another matter, and should be treated with at least as much child security as kitchen knives.) It's not difficult to injure oneself with a bow, either stringing or strung, but it is difficult to make that injury life-threatening. Loose strings pose a choking hazard, I suppose, but really, what doesn't?
So. Those are my current justifications for the slightly-conflicting viewpoints I find myself in. They've been bouncing around a bit, and I think writing them out has settled them for the most part.
click
1 I'm vaguely aware with the idea that making guns illegal or licensed on paper does very little to get them off the streets. But I'm not aware of any attempt to control guns at the point of production.
