Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

You Bein' Played... Again.

It always seems that after every shooting, we get a lecture about how bad the firearm was, and why it needs to be banned.
It was fairly quiet after the Virginia ball-field shooting this week I wondered what was up.

The talking points repeated this time around was the the assailant used a "high-powered rifle". That's as nonsensical and useless as saying your car has wheels. All rifles are "high-powered"; some more, some less. Curiously, the mass-media wasn't blubbering about an "assault weapon" this time (another stupid descriptor).

But, I did hear the assailant did fire shots in quick succession, indicating a self-loading ("semi-automatic") rifle. I did my research. Here's what you probably didn't hear:

The weapon used in the assault was an SKS rifle. It was introduced in 1945, and withdrawn from front-line use in 1949 (replaced by the AK-47). It is NOT what most illiterate gun-grabbers can call an "assault rifle". It has a wood stock, no pistol grip and no detachable magazine. It holds that magic 10 rounds than anti-gun folks seem to think is the "right" amount. It is listed by the BATF as a "Curio / Relic" for collectors. And finally, it is definitely NOT "high powered". It was designed to shoot an easier recoil intermediate sized round. The SKS is popular among collectors, and budget-minded hunters looking for a medium-ranged rifle.

So, why the silence from the gun-banners? It's hard to demonize a wooden relic that isn't all black and evil looking. So, they didn't bother this time. The irony is that the SKS is functionally identical to the AK-47 and similar to the AR-15. I just looks more like that rifle Uncle Joe used to used. Y'know, not scary.

So, they put out false information about the rifle being "high-powered", then the lie of omission regarding the fact the thing was a flippin' antique. Typical biased crap.

Once again, it wasn't some bad thing that loaded itself and pulled it's own trigger. It was a hate-filled man spurred-on my caustic rhetoric that tried to kill.
Too bad the rifle wasn't black. And that inconvenient political leaning of the assailant. It would have made the story fit their biased narrative better.

Comments

As a native Texan, we understand firearms as a tool (among other things). If you're mending fences in the back pasture you better take one, there's all sort of dangerous critters out there. Of course, the most dangerous critter of all is human. This is a job for Obviousman, but it apparently still needs to be said.

There are a few gun owners who seem determined to give the rest of responsible owners a bad name, but there you go. Here in west Texas it's not unusual to see pictures in the paper of six-year-olds bagging their first buck; of course, kids can take classes at the local range where they are taught gun safety ect (although many are taught by Papa of Granddad). And I see nothing wrong with gun safety classes, but of course the ones that need them the most probably won't take them. There is a lot of paranoia out there (on both sides) and I'm not sure the NRA is helping. Like a lot of things nowadays, trying to have a logical, rational discussion of the issues doesn't seem to work.

A lot of people don't trust the government, but that sort of thing has been going on here since the Whisky Rebellion. America had a rebellion in part because the British wanted to take our arms. It's in our DNA.
 
Not to be rude, but isn't that all a side point to the main issue about the escalation of hostilities happening country-wide? Largely speaking, gun control is more so about people having training, evaluation and only in the hands of those who can minimize the potential damage such weapons can do?

Now, I don't deny the individual in question is a fringe outlier but the problem is that we have too many such outliers, regardless of affiliation, looking to impress a single vision of a country that has been multifaceted from the beginning. So, while the usual agenda pushers didn't hit this particular issue this time, I think it's not so much 'being played' about gun control as there are other, more important, aspects to think about at this time.
 
Not to be rude, but isn't that all a side point to the main issue about the escalation of hostilities happening country-wide? Largely speaking, gun control is more so about people having training, evaluation and only in the hands of those who can minimize the potential damage such weapons can do?

That is easily the ridiculous and un-informed statement about gun control I have ever read. I am not sure where you get your news but that is so far from the truth that I am at a loss of words of how to respond. No one on the anti gun side even makes those claims or even claims them as goals.
 
Plasticweld;bt9946 said:
That is easily the ridiculous and un-informed statement about gun control I have ever read. I am not sure where you get your news but that is so far from the truth that I am at a loss of words of how to respond. No one on the anti gun side even makes those claims or even claims them as goals.

Sorry, I come from a family of hunters and in my experiences we've always been very careful about them. I also don't require them in my daily life so, yes, I am uninformed regarding the issues nationwide as to why they're needed. I was simply asking from a different perspective. Sorry if that is somehow offensive.
 
Ephemeral_One;bt9945 said:
... So, while the usual agenda pushers didn't hit this particular issue this time, I think it's not so much 'being played' about gun control as there are other, more important, aspects to think about at this time.

My implied point was this: Had the assailant been Right-Of-Center, the targets Democrats, and the weapon an "evil" black rifle, this would be an entirely different conversation.

The public is being played because of the orchestrated, moderated response to this incident by the media. They rarely show such restraint.
Thinking people that are honest with themselves know why.
 
Winston;bt9948 said:
My implied point was this: Had the assailant been Right-Of-Center, the targets Democrats, and the weapon an "evil" black rifle, this would be an entirely different conversation.

The public is being played because of the orchestrated, moderated response to this incident by the media. They rarely show such restraint.
Thinking people that are honest with themselves know why.

It would still be a tragedy. That wouldn't change. I know we're in divisive times but if we cannot retain our human empathy and decorum, then we've lost ourselves as a people truly.
 
Winston
I did understand your original point; like many issues nowadays we have two opposite camps, neither one admitting the other has a legitimate point. Compromise is a bad word. Still, will strong regulations or banning solve the problem of mass shootings? I don't know, but banning liquor in the twenties didn't work and the "war on drugs" hasn't stopped the flow of illegal drugs. And actually, trying to stem the flow of illegal immigration is not going to stop it. Violence on a world-wide scale is a problem, and it is true that improved weapon technology has made it easier to kill in vast numbers (WW1 a good example). The real problem lies in attitudes, aggressive human nature
and other things that are darned hard to fix. It's hard to shake hands when each person is holding a weapon.
 
I wanted to respond to one point; why was there so little reporting on such a big story? You can't hear past all the controversy around Trump. This really ticked me off. We are so distracted by these inquiries.
 
Too many people hate too many other people, and firearms make that more problematic than it would otherwise be.
 
If you use "Free Speech" in place of the word " Gun Control" it really puts things into perspective. Freedom relies on free speech and you run into trouble when you try to limit it or control it.

Free speech is ok as long as you agree with me and gun control is ok as long as you only take away the other guys gun but not mine. That is the liberal approach to the problem. No one has to own a gun any more than someone needs to voice or share their opinion, yet by the constitution we are allowed both. I would kind of like to keep that way.
 
Plasticweld;bt9954 said:
If you use "Free Speech" in place of the word " Gun Control" it really puts things into perspective. Freedom relies on free speech and you run into trouble when you try to limit it or control it.

Plastic, you are changing the topic entirely with that point while simultaneously using something far more venomous than any armament. I'm sure you and every other member of this forum is familiar with the idiom, "The Pen is mightier than the sword."

Words, we deal with them as writers and in as many ways as there are stars. And as writers, we should all recognize just how important the correct choice of words to be understood really are. So, when I used Gun control. I meant simply the methods, educations and distributions of firearms. No different from how people must be trained to use a forklift, car, crane or computer to prevent harm to themselves and others. Ideally, yes, we shouldn't need any limits on them but when we seem to get daily, weekly reminders of what these weapons can do in the wrong hands, yes, there need to be some precautions taken for the common good.

Does this mean we should rip guns away from people? No. People should have the right to arm themselves. I'm not looking to stifle that. Of course, I speak only for myself and as I mentioned earlier, I don't find a use for them in my daily life. So, that is my opinion. Nothing more.

Now, as for trying to 'limit' your free speech, I have made no such attempts and will not. I openly accept an opposing opinion as just that. I will try to learn from it but that doesn't necessarily mean I will change. I'm saying this because there are many juvenile methods of forestalling and limiting another's speech such as name calling, bogging down the conversation in semantics or even just decrying the other person's position as idiotic. However, as I mentioned above I believe in keeping decorum and communication open, as those are two of the building blocks of Democracy. Put in another idiom, "I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
 
I did not accuse you of trying to limit my speech anymore than I have a desire to limit yours. The pen is mightier than the sword "sometimes" To control someone you must take away or limit both. History and current events share that story, not my take on things but reality.
 
tinacrabapple;bt9952 said:
I wanted to respond to one point; why was there so little reporting on such a big story? You can't hear past all the controversy around Trump. This really ticked me off. We are so distracted by these inquiries.

Bingo. And it is a totally planned narrative.

If anything falls outside (or contradicts) that narrative, it is not "news".
 

Blog entry information

Author
Winston
Views
83
Comments
14
Last update

More entries in Creative Writing 101

Top