HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control Reform Activism (Group) » Why we can't have nice th...

Sat Jan 16, 2021, 01:04 PM

Why we can't have nice things

It's been said that, at it's most base, the job of the Military is to tear things up and kill people. Of course that's an over simplification and definitely not a primary mission but in there somewhere is that last option.

In the implementation of that last option the Military has a LOT of guns and a LOT of people well trained to use them. So, how does the Military treat guns which are so vital to it's mission?

Why don't do what James Fallows, a reporter for the Atlantic, did and ask an Army Officer:

My niche perspective is this: in the Army, firearms are much more heavily regulated than in civil society. How can so many enthusiastic gun owners say that they hold the military as a model, and yet not accept the strict regulations that go with the military’s use of firearms?
. . .
In the Army, firearms are stored under lock, key, and sometimes guard, and god help you if one goes missing—the post shuts down and a frenzied search bordering on a religious quest begins. After basic training, soldiers are required to go through a few hours of refresher training with practical drills before they are even allowed on a range for individual shooting qualification. These are ranges that are heavily monitored, with a monumental emphasis on safety.
. . .
Can many of the gun-rights advocates be heard seriously advocating for hours and hours of training and qualification by competent authorities before a civilian is allowed to own the same weapon soldiers carry? Perhaps, but I am not aware of it….
. . .
To put a final twist on Oscar Wilde, even in the niche of American gun culture we are living with both extreme barbarism and extreme decadence, with only a precarious sliver of civilization in between.

There is so much more context in the article and it's a good read. Four paragraphs are very limiting so I hope you take the time to at least scan it.


From another article in the series:

During the Vietnam war era, as a newly graduated mechanical engineer, I was hired by Colt's Firearms, the original manufacturer of the M-16, and tasked with M-16 related assignments during my employment.
. . .
The AR-15 was developed specifically as a military weapon to replace the M-14. It was probably one of the first major weapons systems to be privately developed following the DOD's decision to privatize the design and development function. This function had heretofore been carried out by publicly funded government operations, most notably, in the case of military small arms, the Springield Arsenal.
. . .
Only after civilian manufacturers like Colt's made boatloads of money producing M16A1's and selling them to the government did someone (I believe it was Colt's Firearms) decide to make and sell a semi-automatic-only version of the weapon for civilian sale. It was, of course, known as the AR-15.
. . .
Like Eugene Stoner, whose mission was producing better equipment for the military, I do not believe that there is any place in the civilian world for a family of weapons that were born as an assault rifle. I am a staunch supporter of properly equipping our nation's military but also of effective gun control for weapons available to civilians, to include banning those which are inappropriate outside a military context.

As with the first article this one has much more context and is is worth the read or at least a scan.


These articles are part of series with the other parts linked at the end. I anticipate that I'll be posting from them as well assuming the assembling militias in our state capitols don't preempt me.

I ask again, is it time to talk about the free access to guns in American society?

4 replies, 1052 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sat Jan 16, 2021, 01:25 PM

1. Or is it too soon after the last massacre (2019?) to begin to talk. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 16, 2021, 01:30 PM

2. There have been more than 20 mass shootings so far THIS year.

Mass shooting defined as at least 4 injured or killed in a single incident.

Details here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to flamin lib (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 16, 2021, 02:41 PM

3. That's why I used the word "massacre" instead of "mass shootings". Your point is well taken. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 16, 2021, 07:56 PM

4. Yeah, mass shootings aren't reported on anymore. If less than 50 people are killed or 100

injured it's not worth the ink.

What a commentary on the state of gun carnage in America today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread