Most people have friends with differing political views and experiences, I think I might be in a place where my friends are more divergent than most.
Socially I can be pretty liberal, I don't mind funding the arts. I think that some government programs are valuable. I am all about letting people have their personal freedoms to live as they like. I think the government should stay out of my personal life. I don't think national health care is a good idea. I am fond if import taxes. I don't think the government has any business regulating how children are raised or punished (within the bounds of assault, and doing physical harm). I am pro gun ownership. I think all states should have shall issue concealed carry weapons permit laws. I don't think we need new gun laws, the ones we have are squirrelly enough and too hard to enforce. I am pro-choice on a legislative level, but personally pro-life.
Everyone should be able to do what they feel they need to do provided it doesn't infringe the ability of others to be happy, safe and free.
As the sniper shootings have been going on over the past month or so it has been interesting to listen to the difference of reactions of my friends, from critiques of his choice of weapon and sniping technique, to lets ban gun barrels or even all metal round things?!?! My reaction is why a .223 isn't a good rifle for killing people it is good for coyotes, and small varmints, it isn't even considered a good deer rifle because such accuracy is required, I figured it was an ex-military person using an AR-15 for familiarity's sake...guess I was right.
This morning I was running through some of my friends weblogs and found two so disparate it was funny.
The first..a why do we need assault rifles?
These next two...from the same guy..I am very sympathetic to. The term "Assault Rifle" is a legal term defined by certain criteria, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, fully automatic...there are more.. but those are the big ones. If it meets those criteria it is now illegal for most people to buy or sell such a thing, because it is an assault rifle. Assault rifle means nothing to a gun person, it is a media/political/legal term. It has nothing to do with functionality, or use. Other loaded words with the media "semi-automatic" "automatic" yet more that get me so frothing at the mouth I can hardly speak let alone type.
Here Scot talks about the media and their inaccuracies about the reports of the sniper and his rifle. Largely I am sure these stem from ignorance, but one would think that a newspaper or major broadcasting firm would want to have SOMEONE on staff to read over the article for technical correctness, I am sure they do it for science articles. Providing bad technical facts is worse than providing none. Then never appear in the errata of a paper either, I have looked.
The
NYT had an article about the shooters and the rifle and the fact it was illegally owned. I felt it a pretty fair article, the facts were correct, it explained exactly how the rifle was within the law, and how it wasn't really a sniper rifle at all. It was a Bushmaster XM15 A3 M4, which is sort of like an M-16A2 with modifications to make it fit within the laws. I don't hunt varmints so I have no use for such a thing.. but it is a nice enough rifle. What cracked me up was the bit from Kristen Rand... where she says "It complies with the letter of the law, but it is still an assault rifle" clearly it is NOT, it can't be... she and her crackpot gun control friends made up a scary term "assault rifle" and set the requirements for what made something an assault rifle, this isn't it. Pushing her agenda..sure..but that's her job she is the the legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington. Scot apparently felt much the same as me.
Here was his reaction.