Emanon Gun Politics - Email Questions
I have gotten several emails about my view on guns, while I have written quite extensively about my view on guns, some of these people asked specific questions that I will now answer. I will also be writing a bit more about my interest with guns, as I did in a previous piece but expanding on it…
Understand, most of my especially more left leaning friends do not agree with my views on guns – since most of my followers do tend to be more left leaning I do not expect some of you to agree with me either. That’s fine everyone is entitled to their own view. I may be answering further questions in the comment section as long as it is an actual question.
I will be quoting or paraphrasing some of my other pieces that I have written on guns and will be linking them all in the Artist Comment Section below. Okay, here goes, the questions. Note, I have a habit of extrapolating my answers, so my answers can be a simple yes or no… but
Do you think gun bans work? Why either way..
No, I have always thought the idea of banning guns in order to fix the problem looked like an easy way out.
We can look at both sides, while I am no Democrat nor Republican I will address both of their arguments.
Democrats love to make the argument that in general states that have stricter gun laws, banning assault weapons etc showed a great decrease in their murder rate.
I will counter that by saying if we look over the decades, even states that passed no stricter gun laws overall are seeing a decrease in crime rates with respect to guns.
But to also counter this democratic argument, I would use Chicago as my example, Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet their gun deaths and nonfatal shootings overtime have increased significantly. While I know that the issue in Chicago has little to do with its actual crime rate - - crime is a byproduct from not addressing certain social, economic, educational programs of a town, city, state, country etc.. but if the argument is that stricter gun laws will solve the problem is something I laugh at.
Where I grew up, I knew men and women who were friends, in a life of crime and who had fully automatic weapons, who had grenades – one friend even had an RPG Launcher …. Though I doubt he ever had plans of using the RPG but that is not the point per se. When you say that you are making the laws stricter what I hear, and where I tend to agree with the Republicans somewhat on is that you are making it harder for law-biding citizens from getting guns since most criminals or people who plan to commit crimes are not going through legal channels from getting their gun anyway.
The Republican argument, or some of the arguments I have heard from the Republicans are OH NOES, OBAMA 23 PROPOSES WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN!!!
I laughed my ass off at the top Republicans that said this nonsense, while I disagree with the president on the Assault Weapons ban and I will say why later on… here are the 23 executive orders the president signed and I will go through them and please tell me what is so controversial or will stop people from owning guns…
I agree with pretty much all of them, only a moron would think centralizing arrest records to ensure that when doing a background check that everyone shows up - when debating gun violence on capitol hill, I watched it on C-span, I found out something that I had not known. That some states have 50, 60, 70..and some even over 100,000 criminal records that are not put in the system due to a lack of personnel or someone to actually sit there and put all of these things in the system. What this means is that if someone who has been convicted of a felony, gets a background check and they are lucky enough to be one of the 50..60..100,000 in a given state that has not had the records put in the system then the background check will show that they are able to buy a gun - - so we need to address this.
One of the other things that I do not get what is so controversial is the saying having a mental health database, of someone declared mentally unstable by the courts showing up in the database as well, to ensure that the mentally unstable will not get guns.
To sum it up, no, I do not think gun bans will ever work, since as stated criminals will not be going through legal channels to get guns and pretty much whatever type of gun they want can be bought on the black market, to sometimes untraceable guns.
Same person who asked previous question asked:
What gun regulations would you have?
My gun regulations - if I were writing the law is very simple.
Universal background checks –
I often hear when the president said such and when I have been saying such for years is that WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, ALL GUN BUSINESSES MUST DO BACKGROUND CHECKS.
Yes, that is true on the latter that gun businesses do have to perform background checks yet a third or so of gun sales are private sales and if we can believe a report from years ago that said 40% of guns are bought without background checks, while it is old, I believe the number has gone down to maybe 20-25% perhaps … but anyway, there are no laws that currently say that private sales must perform background checks, so I would want a universal background check. So private sale, or gun business sale must perform background checks.
The background check system would be centralized, meaning, state, local and federal arrest records would be on one system. Someone told me before, NO, WE NEED TO KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT!!!... What I found odd, also by that congressional gun debate is sometimes, when states do not send the records up the chain is that someone can get a background check in one state …where a conviction will not show up in another state that would have disqualified them .
I would love to also adopt something like Switzerland has, where once a year you have gun tests to show your ability to shoot the gun with accuracy. Some of my more conservative friends have no issue with this, I expected them to have the most issue with it but many of them are gun owners and think it is dumb to own guns and not know how to use them. So they are okay with either a yearly or biyearly test to show you know how to use your guns.
Another thing which may cause some issue is every 5 years to reregister weapons, some of my more conservative friends are against this, as is some of my libertarian friends since SOME, not all, think we should not have to register our guns at all- - that of course is their view, I have no issue with gun registration, nor do I believe the conspiracies of oh noes, gun registration is so they can confiscate all of your guns in a few years… eh, to each their own.
Stricter penalties on straw purchases, there have been many state and federal studies on tracing guns and what they found is that many of the illegal guns owned in inner cities, etc trace back to legal purchases in states with laxer gun laws, where someone buys guns for people who may not pass a background check and then since private sales do not require background checks they can sell the gun to the criminal at a marked up price.
If someone is doing this then the penalty should fit the crime - - note, if the store owner had no part in it then they of course will be left alone unless of course it can be proven that they were knowingly selling guns to someone just so they could commit crimes with them then that is a different matter.
With respect to my view that guns bans do not work – I was asked about certain high powered guns and do I think they should be banned outright… personally I would say no for the same previous reason – I come from a huge military and law enforcement family and for the most part they will say the same thing, it is not the law-biding citizen they worry about with guns, it is the criminals. No matter what gun you ban a criminal will find a way to get it, thus bans may lessen the likelihood of a criminal having it which goes onto my previous point of straw purchases, but it does not absolutely ensure that they will not get them,
So while I personally would support two things with respect to higher powered weapons, one an increased level of regulatory measure, and to allow the price to be a deterrent to buying them.
The two guns I most often mention when I say this are the M249 light machine gun, which can fire 700-1000 rounds per minute, and the M134 Minigun which is capable of firing 2000-6000 rounds per minute. At the offset someone will say YOU ARE CRAZY, WHAT DOES SOMEONE NEED WITH THIS TYPE OF GUN!!!
Let us look at legality as it stands today, is there much different than having a gun that can fire a 700-1000 rounds per minute [NOTE, SAYING IT CAN FIRE THIS MANY DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON WILL HAVE THE NECESSARY 1000 ROUNDS] VS someone having a perfectly legal AR-15 and just having 10 100 round drums which in most states are legal [note they were illegal from 1994-2004 during the assault weapons ban]
Anyway back on the point, for these type of high powered guns, I think they should have a special sort of gun license, like many gun dealers need Class III license in order to sale the more higher capacity firearms – I would propose a sort of license where you must get it renewed yearly [just like the gun dealers do] or bi yearly…. These licenses are much harder to get than your average simple gun permits, the background check on these things extend more to than whether or not you have a criminal record and the like…
Well pass that, I would allow the price to be a deterrent, let us speak realistically here.
No one is going to spend 150-200,000 dollars to buy a M134 Minigun when they have similar yet smaller versions of the minigun which are perfectly legally and still can fire hundreds of rounds per minute.
Look at it this way, no one is going to spend 150K bucks on a gun, then another 5-10K on ammo, just to go shoot up a place, then of course if you take into account the weight of this thing, this is not the type of gun you just walk around with .. it is generally mounted on vehicles, buildings etc…
Someone will say BUT WHY DO THEY NEED IT!!! THAT IS TOO MUCH… I would say the smaller version, which is perfectly legal still shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, and is small enough that you can carry it around and shoot…
With respect to the M249 light machine gun, as with the previous gun, no one is going to spend 10-15K on the gun, the accessories and then another several thousand to buy ammo to then go shoot up a school or something.
I would say look at the last few previous shootings, they used AR-15 which you can get between 1500-2500 so nearly a fifth of the cost of this weapon, and as one of the shooters had an 100 round magazine - - so altogether you will pay around 100 bucks for a 100 round mag, plus the 1500-2500 for the gun and its accessories so if we do the math, and say if the person splurged and spent another 10K bucks on ammo ironically enough he would have more ammo than the M249 light machine gun could shoot..
So I take the view of increases regulatory for these high powered weapons and allowing the price to be a deterrent for them. With the view that increased/stricter punishment on straw purchases, and an sort of special license for those wishing to buy these type of guns - - as well as some stipulation that before you buy these you must buy a heavy duty gun safe.. oh noes government telling me what I must buy.
If you can spend 15K on a gun and then bitch about a 1000 buck safe then perhaps you should not waste your money on the gun, on the same token, if you can pay 150-250K on a gun, and then whine about spending 5K on a heavy duty safe to house it then perhaps you should check your finances before buying the gun.
Now, you have some of my more left leaning friends that speak of it as the second amendment is for hunters, it is for home protection, etc… I agree, home protection, hunting and all of that but it is clear to me that gun bans do not work in general.
While I disagree with the view that we need any and all weapons that our military can have as one woman I was debating before thought we should also be able to have RPG, Mortars, Nukes etc.. her view was if the government can have it so should we, I would draw the line at non-firearms weapons.
I live in New York City which has some strict gun laws, I understand the whole stricter gun laws in certain areas of New York City, such as I understand having more security and stricter gun laws around the United Nations, the last thing we need of course is some foreign dignitary getting shot on our soil and causing some international conflicts which I admit should be a concern which is why downtown, it is not uncommon to see NYPD officers every block or so, it is not uncommon around the UN building, especially when a controversial figure is coming to see officers on rooftops etc for a few blocks around looking for any activity on rooftops etc… I understand that and have no problem with it but as a whole, and within certain restrictions such as I do not think you should be able to bring guns into public buildings such as the IRS building, the FBI Building, whatever, so I understand certain reasonable restrictions.
I understand the emotional arguments as well, such as after Newtown, we saw many Republican and Democratic law makers speaking of guns, I understand that. One thing that has really irked my nerve is when I see Democrats and Republicans saying we need more regulation of the film industry!!!! This is what is causing it, um no, pretty much every country has access to these films, what every country does not have is the ease of getting guns as America has.
What we need to do, is, increase spending in mental health especially for teens and adults, because suicide rate by guns have steadily increased even has homicide rate with guns has decreased. Do not get me wrong, I much prefer someone stay at home and kill themselves then the idiotic notion of shooting up a school, killing dozens of people then killing themselves… you could have just stayed the fuck home and killed yourself for all I care.
But with the seriously mentally unstable, we need, as a society and perhaps this steps outside of the range of guns is to attempt to do away with the stigmatization of mental health in this country. That is why many parents of course say they do not want their kids to go on medications because they do not want that in their file. I agree, I think medication should be a last resort personally, some kids get drugs for being hyperactive - - sure, has nothing to do with kids not going outside to play as much and having all of that pent up energy - - so … try taking 1-2 hours a day and letting them go out and run some steam off, if that does not work then perhaps counseling, if that does not work then therapy of some kind and if that still does not work then perhaps medication if that is the only thing that will help with their mental condition. I notice many schools seem to wish to medicate first.
Note: I am in no way blaming schools or parents in general for their kids growing up and killing people – in most cases I am pretty sure that this is not what the parent wanted for their child, or perhaps they did not recognize the early warning signs of the mentally disturbed… things happen..
Copied from a previous piece I did
While having a previous debate with a conservative woman, she said that I supported tyranny and that the founding fathers intended for the citizens to own every weapon as the military and they would allow every citizen to have a gun with no restriction since the 2nd amendment says in relation to their quotes.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason
I always am a bit taken aback when someone tries to tie the founding fathers and say they would be for no limitations at all. I do think for the most part the founding fathers were very intelligent men, yet this idea that they would support no restrictions at all in today's context I do not think would be logically sound.
With respect to the previously mentioned conservative woman, when I pressed her about is she just referring to guns she is referring to, in her words, "any and all weapons that the US military can have, we as citizens should be able to have"
no, sorry but while I support a citizen having the right to handguns and a few other type of guns I would OPPOSE them having access to "any and all" weapons that our military can have. I would oppose the average citizen buying mortars, I would oppose the average citizen having RPG launchers, or mines, I would surely oppose the average citizen having access to chemical weaponry and highly radioactive things. When it comes to these type of things whose sole purpose is mass killing then I do not see why just anyone should be able to have these items.
I do not find it hypocritical to say they can own semiautomatic weapons, which I have seen in sportsman like competitions and would not support the banning of them
and saying I would oppose average people having the previously mentioned military type, war styled weapons such as highly radioactive bombs, RPG launchers and do think these type of things should be highly regulated.
With respect to the founders, I do not think the founders would say just anyone should be able to have a weapon that could take out NYC in a matter of minutes, or highly radioactive weapons that if put in certain water plants and so on can kill tens of thousands or perhaps millions and so on.
With respect to the founders and firearms, that is of course also a false comparison. When it came to the founding fathers for the most part we did not have a standing military. When we got into conflict the citizens took up arms and became the military, thus they were the militia. In modern America we have a standing military and we have reserve units that are on call when and if we need more units. Yet the days of the draft are gone and even in the days of the draft they did not just take anyone. You still had to fit the criteria of being in shape, able to perform and so on so this idea that
the people today in connection with "militia" was just like the days of the founding fathers and because of this every citizen should be able to own any and all guns that our military, who are highly trained in the usage of these type of weapons of mass destruction
sorry I do not follow this analogy and if that, in your eyes somehow makes me a hypocrite then so be it.
I have spoken with a few conservative friends who are big gun lovers and even they do not agree with this particular conservative that the average citizen should have access to "any and all" weapons the military has. I say this to show that it is not all conservatives who think this way and as said below I did not wish to generalize all conservatives in one way.
As previously stated I have family who are members of several government law enforcement agencies and yes, they have taken RPGs from people, and so on
yet it is one thing when you are in the ATF and going to round up a cache of illegal weapons and know there may be a chance of firefights but
RPG Launchers and "any and all weapons our military can have" just makes their job a lot more difficult and I would imagine may result in much higher death tolls.
okay that ends that part of the limitations and restrictions on gun ownership
well more like weapon ownership with respect to her particular comment to me
As stated above, I am only speaking for me, for me when they say liberals are against gun ownership I see that as a hyperbole argument. For most of the liberals I know are not against gun ownership they are against handing them out like candy with no restrictions at all. So when it comes to me, I am not against gun ownership, in fact I favor gun ownership
I am for responsible gun ownership. There is a difference between using the absolutist argument of "liberals" in general are against gun ownership when most liberals I find are not against gun ownership they are simply for responsible gun ownership same as our conservative counterparts. I have yet to meet a conservative group with a consensus of
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN, NO RESTRICTIONS, NO RULES, ANY AND ALL WEAPONS
and so on.
end of copied part
A friend asked me what I let him read it,
“How can you want world peace, yet be okay with gun ownership”
I find this type of thinking, as I told him to be a very facile argument. The idea that without guns we would have world peace is entertaining and known false. Before there were guns people and nations battled, using swords, knives, axes, etc … this idea that guns are what brought violence to the world just makes me laugh.
I would concede that a gun perhaps made the killing en mass a hell of a lot easier, one person could easily shoot 20 people before anyone could respond than let’s say one person trying to stab 20 adults to death all at once before someone trying to tackle them or run away .. I will concede that point but the idea of if we just ban guns then that would solve our violence problem is absurd - - it may curb our innocent bystander deaths and homicide rates may decrease some but it will not stop violence in our society which I have always pegged as more of a socioeconomic problem than a gun problem.
The reason you see more deaths in more poverty and low income neighborhoods is not because they have guns, the gun is not the root cause for crime but rather the socioeconomic, and lack of educational investment I would argue are the root cause for crime. Now, if we addressed poverty, like we do drugs with respect to the money poured into it then perhaps something may get done. As Dr. Cornel West, said, “If only the war on poverty was a real war - -then we would actually be putting money into it”
I think this would do more to curb violence than the idea of banning guns will. If we addressed poverty in this country, if we addressed the socioeconomic situations that 50% of the country go through.. 15% of Americans live below the poverty lines, no surprise that these 15% often live in some of the most crime ridden neighborhoods, another 35% of Americans make just enough money to break even … that slight step where one wrong move can slip them into the poverty level. If we simply addressed this that of course would do far more for our crime than the notion that guns are the main problem. Are illegal guns a problem? Yes…. But are they as big a problem as poverty, the failing education system, the lack of real reform for our entitlement programs, and the great reform we need for our prison and drug laws.. from my perspective I would say no…
Along with my sociopolitical views, I am an unapologetic liberal, progressive, democratic socialist as well as a national conservative.. I often get the, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AGAINST GUNS..
Socialism is more of an economic position which in of itself does not take a view on firearms in general.
One of my favorite labor organizers and socialist said
“The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms… You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man.”
-Eugene V. Debs
So this notion that being a leftist, automatically means you must be anti-guns, is moronic.
As I said before, I have always took it as a matter of comfort.
If you were brought up in an area where guns were either not allowed your family never had them, then you may not feel comfortable around handguns; especially if you have been the victim of or know someone who was a victim of gun violence then you may not be comfortable around guns.
Conversely if you were brought up around guns, or seeing guns was a normal way of life around your home or family and it becomes quite normal to see them, then you would feel much more comfortable around them and not so squeamish.
For me, I have always been around guns, legal and illegal. I grew up in Harlem, New York; so seeing people with illegal firearms was not a rare occasion. Yet when it comes to my family, my father is a Vietnam Veteran and a retired US Marine, as well as after he got out of the military he became and NYPD Officer, at 70 now, he is of course retired yet still has many guns, all legally owned of course. I also have a huge family of military men and women, law enforcements [police officers] as well as family in an array of federal agencies, FBI, CIA, ATF, etc… so I was always use to my family members carrying guns at family gatherings such as reunions and things of that nature when I was very small kid.
My father taught me since I was like 6 or 7 how to hold a gun properly, how to aim.. I had went to the range with him for quite some time and had other family that would take me to the range with them and teach me proper safety for the next few years. It was not until the age of 11 that I was actually allowed to shoot the gun [the particular range had rules about no kids under 10 allowed to handle guns, and kids 10+ could with adult supervision and as long as they understood the basic rules] at around this age, and after years of being taught safety rules, proper way of handling guns, how to aim, how to shoot … During this time, while very different than an actual gun, I was into paintball guns and while the blowback of paintball guns are nothing compared to real firearms, it did teach me how to aim at a target, both moving and still targets and hit them with accuracy. I also shot BB Guns as well and could hit my target with accuracy so when I finally was ready to shoot a real gun, after a few shots I got the hang of it pretty quickly and was able to shoot moving and still targets with accuracy.
Over the next few years I have shot pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and many types of guns allowed for civilian use…and a few military weapons thanks to a few relatives in the military who allowed me to fire their firearms, which was pretty cool.
Gun Safety – Gun Usage – Gun Ban
A friend’s father who like me considers himself a leftist, and enjoy guns says that instead of gun bans, we should make it mandatory that they know how to shoot the gun when it is bought, like I said above some type of test every few years where you show you can shoot the guns.
Note, if you have several kinds of pistols, you do not have to be tested on each caliber of pistol if they are similar in make and model.. but every type of gun, yes…
As stated in this piece that I find banning failure, what about teaching people how to use them?
New York has several safety gun classes and proper usage for people 13+ .. as stated above my father and family started teaching me proper gun safety and usage around 6 or 7… What if we had programs that taught children that guns are not toys, that if you see a gun never pick it up and instead get an adult etc… I think proper gun safety and usage would go much further than just saying… NO, BAN THEM ALL, NEVER TOUCH A GUN!! THEY ARE EVIL!!
… Some High Schools in America have shooting teams, a friend when reading this asked me, what did I think of them?
I looked it up and have no issue with a High school in a controlled environment has shooting competitions against other shooting teams in that state… OH NOES, TEACHING THEM HOW TO SHOOT, THAT IS BAD, TEACHING THEM VIOLENCE!!!... yeah, because high school kids do not know that there is violence in the world….
But anyway, since I was asked about it, I have no issue with it per se, I admit that other than them shooting, and competing that I do not know much about them…
I also hear the arguments of more guns means more deaths..
We have had record gun sales for the past 4 years … and yet the homicide rate has decreased, the suicide rate by guns has increased so hm.
But as stated, if someone wants to kill someone, and they do not have a gun… if they truly wished to kill someone they do not need a gun to do it. If someone is depressed and they do not have a gun, if they truly wish to kill themselves then they will find a way - - knife, bridge, pills… so the notion of OH NOES, BAN, BAN, BAN THIS WILL SOLVE THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS!!
Um, no… as stated above, crime is a byproduct of socioeconomic ills, if you address the socioeconomic ills then you will see a decrease in crime.
We can use NYC for example, our governor LOVES talking about how when NYC passed the 1994 assault weapons ban over the next few years we saw a great decrease in crime.. not exactly true. When NYC passed the assault weapons ban crime pretty much stayed the same.. it went down significantly when we put out more patrols on the streets, were making more criminal arrests, ect … and that is how crime decreased.
So how about instead of all of these firing of cops we hear about because they have no money… then ironically with less cops on the street crime rises and then they spend even more money prosecuting crimes than it would have cost them to keep cps on… you hire more cops in your most crime ridden neighborhoods, increase patrols, and if illegal activity happens make an actual effort to arrest the person without treating the citizens that just happen to live in these neighborhoods all like criminals because of where they live - - which is why many people in certain areas fear the cops more than they do the criminals.
I am not one of those who believe if we get stricter gun laws that would decrease crime. I want sensible gun laws, I do not believe someone should be able to go into a shop and buy semiautomatic guns with no real explanation, or buy thousands of rounds… as stated I come from a military and hunting family and the truth is… if it takes you 10 shots to shoot a target of mass stature such as a human in a life or death situation, assuming they are not hiding behind something, then perhaps shooting is not for you.
As someone who advocates for gun safety and proper use, as well as shooting with accuracy to ensure that you hit your target, where you intended to hit your target and that no innocent bystanders are hit with your bullet…or weapon of choice.
So this idea that I want to ban guns is laughable. As I said above, I grew up in an area where illegal guns were quite a normal thing and it would be foolish of me to say if you make gun laws more and more, strict that people who do not even follow the law would adhere to these rules. So I am not one of those liberals that says BAN ALL GUNS…. Because I do not see the point that is making.
Though honestly, the issue for me is not guns, it is poverty and education, if you address these two key things I think it would go far with decrease the crime rate. As we know, the lower the average income of an area, and the more populated that it is, generally has both higher crime rates and not as good of an education system.
I may or may not add more to this at a later date/time, if someone asks me a question in the comment that was not addressed in general with respect to gun ownership, I may add it to this… we shall see..
Goes back to my liberal, progressive, democratic socialist – national conservative cave to stockpile guns and wait for the zombies to start attacking….