Why does anybody need a weapon like that?
As much as I frown upon gun ownership, I can at least understand the argument that people want something close at hand to protect themselves, their families and/or their property. But to my mind, that can be achieved with a simple handgun or something like a rifle. Similarly, I can understand that hunting is a popular and legitimate pastime, even if it's not something that I would have any interest in. But as in the case of personal defence, I can only see a limited range of weapons being necessary.
But then there is the availability of some pretty serious heavy-duty weaponry - like that .50 rifle. What possible need does a civilian have for something like that? What practical application do they have outside the military and law enforcement? To my mind, they're unnecessary, and considering the devastation that they can cause, they should be illegal. But if the government tries to take them away, people claim that their rights are being violated. I don't think a total gun ban is practical, so if there is some provision for some ownership, I don't see how rights are being violated.
In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, Obama pointed to Australia and our response to the Port Arthur shootings - that we took one look at it and said "yeah, that's never happening again", then put legislation in place. And do you know what? It hasn't happened since. Gun ownership is possible, but tightly regulated. The people feel safe, and nobody has protested that their rights are being trampled on. We don't have massacres or spree shootings, and we don't have police shooting civilians on a regular basis - and I'm not just talking about Michael Brown; there are entire Wikipedia articles dedicated to recording the number of people shot by police month-by-month.
Every time the gun debate comes up, the focus is on rights. But do you what nobody talks about? The need to exercise those rights responsibly. You have a right to free speech, and if you so wish, you can shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. But you have the responsibility to recognise that doing so will likely trigger a stampede that could result in deaths and injuries - deaths and injuries that you will be held accountable for. So maybe what America needs is a Bill of Responsibilities. These discussions of rights tend to focus on my rights; that the government can't take away my right to free speech, or my right to bear arms. There's never any talk of your rights. Maybe that's the difference between Australians and Americans. Prior to Port Arthur, we had a right - maybe not a constitutional one, but a right nonetheless - to gun ownership. In the aftermath, we chose to restrict that right. So while Americans exercise their rights to fulfil their needs, Australians choose not to exercise their rights to fulfil the needs of others.
Because I don't know about you, but if my neighbour feels the need to own a weapon that could literally rip me in half just to feel safe, I start to wonder if he trusts me. And that makes me wonder if I trust him.
