It's 2018 and the 2nd Amendment people are living in 1791. You don't need to shoot things to survive anymore. You don't even need to leave your house for food, it can be delivered! Come join us in the future!
11
The old canard 'guns don't kill people, people kill'. No! It's people with guns that kill. It's all well and good to be be safety minded about guns and use them in a legitimate way, that has nothing to do with the unfettered distribution of guns to anyone. It these gun owners who are too self interested to be bothered with any kind of inconvenience to their own access and use of guns who cause the easy access to guns by the unhinged. Just like driving cars has restrictions that all conscientious and safety minded people must still abide by certain inconveniences and restrictions, so must gun owners to keep the idiots from owning guns. It is not enough just to have the requirement of background checks. After all, one is not allowed to drive a race car on public roads, etc. Certain guns should not be allowed, and other guns and owners should be licensed.
9
They might be kids who know little about guns and hunting but they do know about death first hand. Being a wi.tness to the killing of one's peers overrides the feelings of gun lovers
6
I also hunt and shoot. You should also know very well you're AR-15's are not hunting rifles. They are well designed to kill humans. Do I shoot squirrel with a 20 gauge slug? You will still be able to hunt and slaughter your animals when assault weapons are once again illegal.
5
Clint Eastwood famously said he believes in control, that whenever there's a gun around he wants to be in control of it. Guns, like Latin, really are utilis et gaudium! However, I don't trust anyone else to be in control of them or themselves around them. Power corrupts. Weapons are power. Weapons designed to kill people in masses corrupt absolutely. I will gladly sacrifice my access to really cool killing tools to keep them out of everyone else's hands.
7
Just for some perspective, brass knuckles are illegal in some states.
4
Gee, Dakota, you kind of shoot down - pun intended - your own points. You say you support gun control measures, and yet declined to join your fellow students who were advocating for such measures.
Here are some facts, my young friend - the U.S. is 4.4 percent of the world's population, and yet we have 50 percent of the private guns in the world - 300 million guns. While the number of guns in the U.S. has exploded, fewer households have guns, meaning about 1/3 of households in the U.S. have multiple guns.
There is news today that a 9-year-old boy shot and killed his 13-year-old sister while arguing over a video game console. Kids in the U.S. are 11 times more likely to die from a gun than any other developed nation.
Last week, two teachers trained in gun use, "accidently" shot off their guns, with one student ending up with bullet fragments in his neck.
Over 500 people were shot in Las Vegas, and of course, 48 people died. One woman who was hit once, has spent all but two days in the hospital since being shot. She throws up her food every day, as her digestive system was wrecked by a single bullet tearing up her vital organs.
While republicans offer empty thoughts and prayers after each mass killing, 26 people were literally gunned down and murdered in their church pews.
Over 33,000 people a year in the U.S. die at the wrong end of gun each year, all so you can shoot your cool guns. Grow up, Dakota.
16
What do you really need to 'know' about guns? A bullet comes out of the barrel and kills you. Its not necessary to know the caliber of the bullet nor the manufacturer. Wanting to see fewer devices, that when used properly, can kill you, is all one needs to know.
4
I'm not sure why an intimate knowledge of guns is a prerequisite for not wanting to be shot by them in school.
9
Hi Dakota: Please consider who are the 'problem' gun owners. They are clearly not like you. They may have some mental health issues that are not being addressed. They may be folks who use guns to strike out at society. They may be criminals who use guns to steal from other people. They may be people with anger management issues.
We have a segment of American society that can own guns and we have a segment of society that should NOT own guns. It is really that simple.
And for the record, I am not interested in taking guns away from young men like you that use guns responsibly. Please don't let the NRA's rhetoric fool you.
4
How much do you have to know about guns to be afraid?
5
Dakota, Thanks for taking the time to provide your opinion on the matter. However, this is a tired trope continuously trotted out by the NRA and their ilk: Gun safety proponents don't know jack about guns, that's why they're so mean to gun owners, NRA members and gun manufacturers. Further, if they did know just a little more than diddly about guns, maybe both sides could have a conversation and there wouldn't be such animosity. And, finally, it's the non-gun-owners fear of guns that drives the animosity between the two sides of the gun divide.
And that's all nonsense. I, too, grew up hunting (in Idaho & N. Nevada). Fired my first gun when I was about six or seven. Sat in a duck blind with my dad when I was about three or four. I've bagged everything from mule deer to elk to pheasant to sage grouse to quail and chukar. I know a thing or two about guns.
I also know a thing or two about gun casualties in the U.S. That's because I am part of the grim statistics, having accidentally shot myself with a .30-30 during a deer hunting trip when I was 13. Further, because of the hunting culture where I grew up, six of my classmates were killed by gun accidents. This is tragedy beyond words. I've lived it. Don't need to be lectured about it.
Conversely, gun owners like you shouldn't fear sensible gun safety regulations that will prevent unbearable tragedy to descend upon your family and loved ones. So let's stop with the NRA-advocated gibberish and have a real talk about gun safety.
11
Dear Editor,
I am 70 years old.
I am a farmer (2000 acres).
I understand guns.
I have read Dakota Hanchett's essay reproduced in your newspaper.
I am at a loss to understand his point expressed as it is in terms of his subjective reality.
Might I respectfully suggest that the youth of your great country are intellectually and objectively grappling with the subjective indoctrination of those who hold dear to that which was said at the 129th NRA convention, in Charlotte, North Carolina on May 20, 2000 and proclaim "...."I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands...." .
A gun is not a "...tool...." nor is it "....cool to own one....". Perhaps Master Hanchett has not had the benefit of a collective of wise ones quietly speaking around the camp fire of the horror rended by guns and the thrill of hunting with a single shot or the stealth of the use of the bow and arrow.
Anyway, given the self serving distortions of the language of your Second Amendment I guess that the best that may be hoped for is a retreat from the extreme armaments presently on offer and for a stringent regulatory system to be undergone before such limited armament might be bought and sold
4
"Going to school can be hard...."..."It can be uncomfortable".... ??!! Probably not has hard as being a parent to a child murdered while attending school. Or as uncomfortable as living with a permanent disability because someone came into your school and shot you. Why should society protect the rights of a small segment of the population to practice what amounts to a obscure and violent HOBBY at the expense of protecting the freedom and security of our nation's children????
11
I am done with ridiculous argument that Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Think about that logic for a second: Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People do. Every person should have his own personal Atom bomb.
The data is rock solid. The more guns you have the more likely you will be killed by a gun. Every semi-automatic riles should be illegal. END OF STORY.
The second amendment has been corrupted by the gun manufacturers through the NRA. Gun ownership had one purpose: forming a militia. Guess what we have the National Gaurd. The sooner you ban all semi-automatic weapons the sooner you will gut the gun death rate.
6
It’s gracious plenty for me that the students know they don’t want to get shot.
3
This kid strangely thinks that a lack of gun safety training is a main cause of all these gun massacres.
7
The walkouts weren't about your hunting hobby or concern about home safety, Dakota.
You missed the point, unfortunately, like many American adults.
10
That is a very good column by Dakota. But I think he might feel different if he had to hide under a desk while someone roamed the halls of his school trying to kill him.
8
Hunting guns do not need be assault rifles.
6
Absolutely no need for an AR 15...it’s a military weapon. Responsible people like yourself and your family would pass a comprehensive background check. Otherwise, enjoy your hunting rifles and handguns.
4
"Many of the young people protesting guns right now seem to have very little knowledge about gun rules and regulations. Guns can be used safely. My family and I talk frequently about firearms and how they should be used. I have a younger brother, and we teach him the rights and wrongs of firearm safety — and, of course, never to use guns to hurt people."
Blah, blah, blah. These aren't even anecdotes, they're just random claims.
Gun enthusiasts should be made to contend with real facts. Like these studies, (reported popularly in Scientific American):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/all-talk-no-bolt-action-gun-i...
and
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-cr...
Sequester a bunch of "responsible gun owners" in an NRA convention for a few days and – can you believe it? – the gun injury rate goes down. Not the "good guy shoots bad guy rate", the gun injury rate – the "whoops! I didn't mean to shoot you (or my own foot)" rate.
So, when you "get the feeling these kids are afraid of me because I own firearms", I'd say that's about the most perceptive thing you wrote in this whole nonsense Op-Ed. They're right to be afraid of you.
6
People are the problem. People with guns.
4
smart kid!
1
Dakota - please don't worry. Stay on your farm and hunt, and shoot, and discuss with your family the federal government's sinister plans to take away your 2nd amendment rights. And when that next shooter (BTW - the numbers suggest it could happen an day now) wanders through your school I'm sure your comfortable familiarity with fire arms, and that NRA safety class you likely took, and your ability to "humanely butcher" a deer, will serve you and your classmates well as you search for cover from a military weapon of war.
Good luck son - you'll need it 'cause ain't nothing gonna change.
5
Just the same old "guns don't kill people; people do" mantra, except from a glib teen. You can play with your bang-bangs all you want to, kiddo, as long as you keep 'em down on the farm, where they belong.
2
Hunting is killing for fun. Too bad this boy has been brought up to enjoy that. The gun is simply a kill tool. Distorted souls enjoy using it to kill.
2
Young man, guns aren't genitilia. Our genitalia provide us with the means to create life and express ourselves throughthe physical act of love. Guns are made by men to kill things. Assault rifles are made by men to kill a lot of men as efficiently as possible. You sound like an intelligent individual, certainly you understand the difference between guns made to hunt animals and guns made to kill on a wholesale level.
6
Sorry, Hanchett. You and no other civilian needs a semi-automatic or assault style rifle to hunt animals. Such guns cannot be used to kill any animal "humanely". A trauma surgeon comparing the difference between a 9mm handgun and an AR-15 on the human body says that the former looks like a "bad knife cut" while the latter looks "like a grenade went off".
Feel free to fool yourself that you are look "cool" with it and are hunting "humanely". But there is nothing "cool" or "humane" about having an assault-style rifle. And no, you don't really need it.
10
What exactly do you hunt with an AR-15?
13
Guns are "cool" until you at on the receiving end of a bullet.
4
Good for you kid! Dont get sucked into the dogma. I owned a rifle in high school too. Today I'm an adult and I own an AR-15 as well as 10 other guns. I've been afraid to shoot my rifle recently because I'm afraid my neighbors might overreact. The house down the street in AirBnB and if some urban people are staying there they will call the cops if they hear gunshots. They don't realize that people shoot guns in their backyards all the time. Or at least they used to. I haven't heard a gunshot in a long while. Everyone is on such edge I don't even feel comfortable using my gun on the 2 acres of land I personally own.
Urban people need to understand that guns have a very important place in rural life. I love my guns and I love knowing that I don't need anyone else to live the life I want to live in the woods. It's like the Democrats think everyone is a idiot out to kill people and the only way to stop gun violence is to prevent citizens from ever having to exercise personal responsibility.
3
They can count the bodies.....
2
If people are a problem in all circumstances, then why are people armed with military level killing machines less of a problem? Or are they in fact more of a problem? I doubt that they are as equal a problem as unarmed people. Also it’s not like hunting accidents are impossible. Human deaths go up when killing machines are nearby is my take. Come on NYT, it’s not fair to publish this, you are ridiculing this person.
Dakota, I am glad you took the time to write your views on guns and the lifestyle of your family. Hunting is fine as long as it is for food and not fun. However, the point raised by other writers below is that AR-15s or assault weapons do not have a place in civil society. We don't need these kind of guns and don't need to be afraid of any idiot who decides to show up with assault weapons because of other issues in their lives.
Maybe you can start a club in your school to talk about the way of life in many parts of America and the world still where hunting provides food. After all that was how early immigrants made sure they were well fed.
Why does everyone assume Dakota is a boy?
"it was meant to honor the students who died in the school shooting in Florida..." But you just couldn't bring yourself to honor them
7
So if you eat, you're an expert on nutrition?
You say we don't know enough about guns? We know that thousands of American people have been unnecessarily murdered by guns, and that guns are made specifically to kill people ~ no matter how you try and sugar-coat your fetish with these death tools, that fact remains true, and it is specifically why the majority of Americans want automatic weapons to be abolished, and for young men like you to get a life that doesn't revolve around playing with death tools.
3
I hope you do become firefighter. Since the majority of your calls will be medical runs, I hope you’ll gain a better prospective on this issue when you see the horrific violence and damage caused in American communities by this awful fetish with bigger, powerful and fun to shoot guns.
2
Your great grandpapoy never hunted with a military grade AR 15. And let's see how cool it is when it rips the guts out of someone you care about. Go play Call of Duty or read a book.
4
Does the NRA have a scholarship fund for best essays now?
5
Punkin', you lost me right here: "I own firearms not only because I think they are cool,.." Duh. You didn't tell us what is so cool about them. Please don't move West.
3
Dakota, I commend you for sharing your views, although I find them troubling. You try to sound reasonable, but admit you own an AR-15, a weapon for killing large numbers of people quickly, not the hunting and target shooting you enjoy. You accuse those who disagree with you as ignorant, yet you mouth irrational NRA talking points such as "...firearms aren't the problem - people are." In many of these shootings, the problem people would not have been able to slaughter so many innocents if they didn't have an assault rifle. What is most troubling is that a seemingly thoughtful person like you is part of a fanatical gun culture, that puts your own gun obsessions above the needs and safety of the rest of us.
5
They may not know much about guns but they know about dead classmates.
6
My family owned a mortuary in Los Angeles. Maybe this young man needs to see what happens to victims of guns, some only babies.
5
Appreciate your measured, thoughtful words, Dakota. I doubt that owning an AR15 would turn you into a homicidal killer. Why others think so, somehow escapes me. Good luck and God bless.
2
I was a schoolteacher in Newport, NH, which is not far from Hanover and is the home of Sturm, Ruger & Co. I currently hold a Texas License to Carry.
As is too often the case, we have little dialog, just competing, and increasingly shrill monologues. The NRA claims 5 million members, so clearly they lack the electoral clout to have the oversize influence they do on our government. The are simply shills for the gun manufacturers, who are the only ones who gain from more guns being the solution to gun violence. The 2nd Amendment Porn starring Dana Loesch is one end of the spectrum. Dakota laments the opposite end of the spectrum.
Despite having the right to carry openly or concealed, I never do. Nor would I ever have agreed to carry in school. I point of fact, I sought and received training to defend students, called SOLVE, or Strategies of Limiting Violent Episodes. No, that would not have prevented an armed killer from murdering students, but did allow me to protect students using non-violent techniques including restraint. It is ludicrous to suggest that teacher be expected to perform duties that trained, armed police officers have been unable to do, should not shift the burden to already underpaid educators.
Are we as a nation still capable of dialogue? It is our only solution.
5
Thank you and your family for being good gun owners and supporting stronger background checks. Now, do any of you belong to a " well regulated militia" to justify your military assault weapon?? That's why the other students are afraid of you. They're not prepping for invasion or the Brown Uprising. They're worried about grades and college and jobs, things that shouldn't require a military type response.
7
He seems like a nice enough kid, but his argument is sheer nonsense.
The problem is not "people," it is people with guns. No other first world country allows its citizens to own assault weapons. No other first world country has the mass murders we do. 'Nuff said.
7
There’s no reason civilians should have military grade weapons and even worse the ammunition that goes into them.
Designed to kill and shred the body.
This kid needs to know he should not be allowed to have a military grade weapon. He’s tone deaf about it.
4
Young man, I admire your ability to share your POV, and eloquently, as well. I grew up in the Bronx. Well educated AND street-smart; tough broad. Did I mention verdant, sappy, tree-huger? Yes, that too. Where I grew up, I could stare black-men in hoodies down without a pistol, shotgun or rifle. But when I moved to Coos County, NH, fifteen or so years ago (I am aged fifty-six now), the second phase of education began in earnest. Falling trees, chopping wood, and yes, shooting at pesky coyotes and fisher cats.....You know it is a dangerous predicament to find yourself between a Mama Bear and her Yearling. ....... So I implore you, SIR, as a blooming individual who is able to recognize both sides of this impinging gargantuan Constitutional debacle, come forward, step up now, to speak and educate as you able, if you are able. I believe, perhaps you might do your country a bit of good.....You wrote here, so you shall not, cannot be ignored.
2
Dakota, you and others who shoot recreationally need to see gun use in America in context. Guns are potential instruments of death. That's why they're made. They are used in murder, and even more often in suicides. They're a temptation and a hazard. They're a threat to civil society. They're cynically promoted for profit and for political division. Get a new hobby.
6
"I own firearms not only because I think they are cool..." This kind of says it all, really.
4
NYTimes, I understand that your conservative columnists are falling well short of the bar these days. But that's not an excuse to publish the opinions of a kid who has missed the point of the argument entirely.
9
Dead is dead. You mistake controlling who has firearms with banning them.
This is the NRA pitch to keep obtaining firearms easy.
5
Ok, look. Guns and people are "the problem".
1
Whomever is aiming that rifle in the accompanying photo has
experienced either poor training in offhand shooting, or none at all.
2
The author presents topic that is in some ways a red herring. I am not against hunting (with rifles) for sustenance. I also appreciate the "cool" aspect of guns from a machine and tool perspective. A couple of decades ago I spent a little time at an indoor range, maybe 40 hours all told, and quite enjoyed target practice. I've never owned a gun and never had a desire to. I am a progressive with an intellectual bent and I find unsupported dogma of any stripe dismaying. I advocate very stringent controls on the presence of guns in public and very well qualified ownership.
The thing about guns is they are weapons. A simple point. As tools, their intent is efficient killing from a distance. It is a fact that someone near me with a gun is a mortal threat to me. If I don't know them I don't know their intent or their mental state. They have an efficient killing tool which compels me to flee the area. There is no reason anyone in a city should have a gun, concealed or open. A killing tool in an area with no objects except people to be employed on cannot be condoned. It would be folly not to interpret that presence as an immediate mortal threat.
The idiots who insisting on walking into a mall with their rifles a couple of years ago would invoke a flight or fight response, a call to police, and a general shouted warning "men with guns!" It would have to.
That said, fairly stringent gun control rules could still allow hunting. Rifles in a hunting area during hunting season make sense.
1
Words from a High School Junior who hunts and raises food for his family. Quite a contrast with the 16-18 year olds that think all meat comes from a cellophane wrapped tray and that their uneducated vision of the "Bill of Rights" will save the world.
Considering that Planned Parenthood and the organizers of the "Woman's March", folks that opposed President Trump's election along with Bloomberg's gun lobby organized the student walkout. You truly can't believe that a national civic movement, on the same day, hour and topic could be organized by children do you? Well...do you?
If adult citizens can't see the irony of having a gun ban enforced by authorities with guns, then you are incapable of understanding why the Second Amendment was created in the first place.
1
I’m 17. My cousin is 17. She hunts with a bow and arrow and she’s really dang good at it. You don’t need a gun to hunt. If you want one, there’s plenty that are far less dangerous than an AR 15.
If your justification for people owning deadly killing machines is that they’re “fun” I think that’s messed up. I’m sure doing drugs is fun too, but we don’t condone that either. You say people are the problem and you’re right, it’s people like you who believe they have an inalienable right to own killing devices and that that right matters more than someone else’s life who are the problem.
7
"Sometimes I get the feeling these kids are afraid of me because I own firearms."
This is because you have the power to kill them with a slight pull of your index finger. That should scare any sane person. You may not think you would kill anyone today, but all people have emotions, and someday you might get mad, enough to kill someone. Or, what if you develop a severe mental illness, like schizophrenia, or anger management disorder. Or you might just shoot someone by accident, like many "very careful" gun owners. Or your gun may be stolen. Your right to own guns is the reason so many people in America die from gun violence. No other civilized country comes close to the level of gun violence in the US. What do you value more? Your guns or your classmates (and fellow Americans) lives?
4
When Dakota sees a friend killed by a gun or has to take cover because a lunatic with an AR-15 is loose in his school or the mall or the movie theatre where he is, then he can lecture other kids about what they do and don't know about guns.
5
@Dakota-
The part that you inexplicably miss about our school/gun problem is, it’s your schoolmates who are the prey hunted in classrooms and corridors by school shooters, shot down while trying to escape, as they run away, and shot to pieces where they hide. Bagged like the squirrels and rats, or the animals you kill for fun.
Your screed suggests that you’re fine with it.
I’m almost 70. We didn’t have school shootings like we do now. The idea that a deranged kid would show up with a semi-automatic weapon and target his classmates never entered our minds. Of course, there were no “civilianized” AR-15s back then, the root of the problem.
4
There no safety course in the world which can stop a determined killer from using a military style gun to slaughter dozens of school children. With due respect, almost no other civilized democracy in the world is stupid enough to think so, no other country in the world has an organization like the NRA brainwashing young people to believe in such baloney, and among western democracies no other country has anything like the rate of gun violence suffered in America, gun safety training or no gun safety training.
This has been the case for many decades, and finally it is thinking through thick skulls, or at least some of them, that the NRA is fanatical lobby organization for those who wish to profit from the sale of guns to mass murderers. Shame on anyone, law abiding gun owner or otherwise, who kowtows to this murder lobby.
5
Do you have a large collection of AR-15s and many rounds of ammo for killing a deer?? Do you own body armor, in case the deer gets feisty? Just wondering.
4
This is what I got from your op-ed piece. You can't talk about guns because your friends are against them. You would like a discussion as long as it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable. You thing that there should be gun control as long as you can own any gun you want. You parrot the NRA talking point that guns don't kill people, people do, but you don't want to talk about that because that discussion would make you feel uncomfortable.
6
The op-ed editor of NYT should give a little insight into why this was allowed to be published as-is. I wholly respect Dakota's viewpoint, but his thoughtfulness and youth are not a wall against criticism. Yes, many of us are horribly naive about the issue of guns and their place in many parts of American society. But Dakota's blind faith and trust in human behavior is used like a shield.
The piece skirts a lot of straight-up stands on the issues of the day: namely if anyone, mentally ill or not, should be able to buy a semi-automatic assault weapon. Guns worn by his teachers? I realize this is not the point of the piece. But was this just a meditation on treating each other respectfully? I'd like to hear more from the editor. That's all, thanks!
2
As a high school English teacher, I read this student's piece as though it were an essay about gun control. He definitely has strong opinions about the rationale behind owning several guns, and at least he had the courage to not walk out because he didn't agree with the other students. However, he missed the point of the walkouts, thinking it was only about gun control and not about keeping our children safe in school, including those kids who have guns at home. I disagree with his point that guns are merely tools for sport and hunting because the person who is more likely to shoot up a school is the one who has access to weapons. One thing to keep in mind is that he did not learn these opinions in a vacuum. He learned them from his parents, and he will continue to hold these opinions, especially if people shut him down. He's still young, and hopefully pliable and teachable, but his opinions will become more entrenched the longer he sees this country as us vs. them. He's not going to learn to form a different opinion on guns after reading comments that tell him he's wrong and he's stupid.
3
These are the NYT's publication standards now? Teenage contrarians spouting talking points? Give me a break. I don't need to know the mechanics of a rifle to understand that we shouldn't have children getting gunned down in public schools on a weekly basis.
4
God I'm sick of both side-ism. This opinion isn't even that well argued. This is how we got Trump. Stop it, NY Times, just stop it.
5
I appreciate the Times for printing this
1
I grew up on a farm and my father and brother had rifles and shotguns for hunting. But it was always clear in our household that handguns were a different thing and not necessary. There were no AR-15's, but i know they would have horrified my father. Yes, gun safety is important, and guns can be tools for those who need them, but assault weapons were developed for one reason--to kill in an effective and horrible way. They are not cool, and if you don't know that, you need to learn more.
4
I think that we need better ways of keeping track of who has guns and whether they pose a danger to others.
Now a big portion of commenters are confident that they know of only one way to control guns, eliminate them from private use without very strict limits. They are not afraid of the private ownership of automobiles because they consider the risks acceptable because every one needs transportation and only a small percentage of drivers are a threat and there are laws to reduce the threat from them. They will never people keeping guns an acceptable risk.
A big proportion of our population own guns. The first amendment allows people to own guns and to use them and it does not restrict that they be used only for hunting. But owning guns is not really like freedom of conscience or the right to equal treatment under the laws, it falls in some category that is greater than a privilege but less than a natural right. The community is not obligated to allow people with guns to harm other people aside from self preservation. But it does mean that simply removing firearms from private ownership because a majority of the people are afraid of guns is unlikely to happen. Too many people own guns and use them safely to justify that kind of action and it would violate the second amendment. The notion that the kinds of guns which have been used in massacres should be made illegal to end massacres is mistaken, but it will help not much and soon the demands will be to ban more guns.
'Many of the kids protesting guns right now don't seem to know much about gun rules or regulations'.
I hear this comment all the time from gun owners. It's such a specious argument. Why do ordinary citizens have to know about weapons to take a stance on gun control? If you can be shot by a gun, you have the right to have an opinion about who owns it and how they use it.
People have opinions about airlines and flight procedures without knowing how to fly a plane. People have opinions about drug use without personally having used every single drug that's out there.
Saying that those of us who support tighter gun control are just ignorant about guns is an easy way to shut out and deny the reality check that gun owners in American desperately need.
4
I am not native English speaker. Sorry about my English
I do not mind about people having guns but I agree that we need to have more gun regulation to block access to gun from mass shooters but how are people going to make that happen?
Restricting ownership of guns will not work because of 2nd amendments and make laws similar to Federal Assault Weapon Ban might reduce the number of victims and incidents but it does not solve issues.
is there are any methods for this issue?
I do not understand why he didn't join his schoolmates. They were not protesting any ownership of guns! They were protesting the stubborn absolutism of NRA supporters who see ANY regulations as evil, no matter how many people, how many children, are murdered using military weapons!
It sounds like this young man has nothing against sensible gun regulations.
So WHY WHY WHY didn't he join his fellow-students who want nothing more than finally -- finally -- some action taken on gun regulation?
No, your conscience failed you here, young man.
5
We are doomed if the federal background check can take only “more than an hour” to do the paperwork and for the gun seller to determine whether the buyer is in the right state of mind and will use a firearm only in legal ways. Getting a driver’s license takes longer. It takes much longer for a woman to have a legal abortion or for any citizen to join the Armed Forces. Getting a lethal weapon should be really hard, not a random, brief decision and a simple paperwork process.
4
Hunt. Harvest animals responsibly. By all means. Stay mentally fit and no one will come and take away all your guns.
Now then. Understand that most Americans want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, see no reason for civilians to have a cache of high-capacity, combat-derived weapons, want background check loopholes closed and fewer deaths from guns.
And I do not need to memorize the trigger pull weight of some model of gun to want or deserve any of the above.
3
Dakota,
Thanks for your thoughtful note on this issue. I have no doubt that you are responsible enough to own an AR-15. However, if you are allowed to own one, than society must allow many others to own them as well. And, often, they fall into the wrong hands.
Not a perfect analogy, but I am a very safe driver and have never had a violation; should I be allowed to drive 150 mph? No, because then many others would also be entitled to the same privilege and mistakes would get made that put others at risk.
The goal of the gun control movement is quite modest; we seek to take the "mass" out of the murder. Perhaps fewer would die if the next killer had to stop and reload. I don't think that is too much to ask.
If the problem, as you suggest, is that many do not understand the gun issue, why do police chiefs overwhelmingly support an assault weapons ban? I would think they have deeper understanding than the rest of us, including you.
Oh by the way, I hunt and butcher animals and seem to get by without a machine gun so the whole "I am the salt of the earth" thing just doesn't really work. Thanks for being willing to discuss, though.
3
Thousands of students took personal risk walking out of class to have a voice. So much easier to get a nice plump full editorial in the NY Times to countervail it all. Nothing new was added in this. I'd rather hear from someone with some skin in the game (people who took risks for the walk out, people that have survived gun shots, people that have treated wounds or acted to save lives).
2
I am a sophomore in high school and want to first establish that my grandfather was a member of the NRA and that my father owns a rifle. I am not “against guns.”
However, I do not believe that Dakota was fully informed in his descision to not walk out. The student gun control movement states three common sense demands: ban assault weapons, ban high capacity magazines, and close loopholes in the background check system.
As far as the first two go, Dakota gives no convincing argument to oppose the stances. In fact, he still seems to lack proper respect for guns as tools. He says that he has used an AR-15, giving no apparent reason as to why he would need such a serious weapon for hunting other than it being “cool.” In addition, he supplies no reason as to why he or any safe gun owner would need a high capacity magazine.
The third position Dakota seems to fully back. However, I am not going to join him in advocating for a solution to be found in gun sellers becoming mental health experts. It is absurd to suggest that within an hour a seller could could perform the job of a psychiatrist while a customer fills out paperwork.
Finally, I think that it is dangerous to reduce the gun control debate to “for” and “against” guns. I intended to promote common sense gun reform when I walked out last week, but by no means am I completely opposed to responsible gun ownership. I hope our generation can have a substantial discussion and come together for bipartisan action.
4
No one is arguing against teaching how to use guns safely. But please tell me what legitimate safe use there is if an AR15 other than the fact that you think it’s cool.
1
When I learned how to handle firearms, I would have had my head handed to me after I broke my thumb wrapping it around the stock...
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
1
I agree with a lot of what Dakota says. But I draw hwe line at assault weapons bevause they just aren't necessary for hunting, self-defense and target shooting and they are utilized and so many mass killings.
And I don't like the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes , essentially it is true, But bazookas don't kill people either and they are outlawed. RPG launchers don't kill people- people kill people. But yet RPGs are outlawed. So, to me that argument is ridiculous.
About the paperwork. Considering the power you're purchasing, "more than an hour" is worth the wait. Think of it as a test of your patience, your maturity. Impatient people, gun-folks or not, are often too eager to do the wrong thing. A mature, well-written article otherwise.
It may be quite easy to dismiss the article as naive, but nonetheless I would like to applaud the author for his courage to offer his personal, predictably unpopular, opinion to an NYT audience for discussion.
While I struggle to justify any kind of gun ownership I, like many, also cannot claim any proximity to people who grow up around them.
It is obvious that the author tried and failed to bridge the cultural divide at school that appears to bigger than the gun debate.
I find the author puts his finger nicely on some of ‘our’ own soft spots, or better hypocrisies, when pointing out that most people who abhor hunting have little problem to enjoy massacred animals from mass food production for dinner.
Instead of patronizing, we should talk about our own contradictions, like flirt with male violence and mass murder in the movies, support for military aggression in foreign countries, drone assisted executions executions, etc.
At the same time, I would like to give the author more access to factual information in the gun debate: The enormity of the problem for society with 10000s accidental and suicidal deaths every year, the unimaginable destructive effect of military grade weaponry on the human body, the malice of the industry by sophistically targeting fine young adults like him.
I believe that if both sides open up a step further, a compromise could be reached that allows for a highly regulated access to some hunting weapons while barring most of the others.
1
Sorry Dakota, but any actual hunter knows that if you need an AR-15 to bring down game, you're doing it wrong.
1
How about this?....thorough background checks for all purchases (but only proven violent criminals denied outright), no purchases for anyone under 21, everyone needs to pass a basic gun safety course, no assault rifles. In exchange, reciprocity in state laws and eased concealed carry restrictions. Beyond that we can double the penalties for crimes committed with a weapon or people who sell firearms without a permit.
Thanks, Dakota - maybe I'm confused, but I read that you support common sense gun control, which is what I thought the walk outs were all about. The NRA would like to prevent even the most common sense protections. Maybe you and other young people who love to hunt can change that about the NRA culture.
1
I have two cousins who hunt. They both live on farms. The boyfriend of a relative of mine also hunted, but he was what we call a "gun nut," seeing any gun control legislation as proverbial "the canary in the coal mine," the first indication that the U.S. is becoming a dictatorial, fascist state.
They were polar opposites on gun policies. The hunters know that something like an AR-15 is totally unnecessary, and opposed the NRA stance on them. The gun nut, on the other hand, bought an NRA membership for one of them, much to her dismay (both of my hunting cousins are women.)
Mr. Hanchett is directing his comments at the gun control crowd, but he shouldn't be. He needs to be talking to the NRA and to Republican politicians that they've bought off, getting them to support the policies you mention here--and to ban military assault weapons.
1
Guns and suicide are so directly linked in our country -- no one can ignore the prevalence of guns increases suicide deaths -- and if you take them away suicide success decreases drastically. So, yeah, firearms ARE the problem. But it is good this young person is learning to express himself. Like all of us, his views will evolve (with hope) when he learns more facts. And about facts, the Parkland kids are not anti-gun.
1
The shooters needed help and were let down by adults. Great. Now that's cleared up, the students aren't dead anymore.
1
By some of the accounts here, America seems like a really scary place.
I think someone mentioned that citizens should be armed because of possible government overreach, even quoting a long-dead president who lived in times of civil war. I was flabbergasted, initially, but then maybe he is right, and the US is at a similar juncture again - it was slavery, now it's guns.
1
He writes: “Firearms aren’t the problem — people are.”
Then... if PEOPLE are the problem, don’t sell firearms to PEOPLE.
4
At least two of the students who survived the massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School - both leaders in the walkout - come from families that possess fire arms in their homes. These two young men are not anti-gun, but anti-military style weapons and large capacity clips for civilians.
Steven Paddock, had he been armed with a .22 rifle, 12 gauge shotgun or 9mm handgun would never have been able to inflict the type of damage from that height and range that he did from the Mandalay Bay Hotel, where he fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor in ten minutes, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. The military grade weapons he used made that a slaughter.
I can not pretend to know what was in Madison's mind or what his definition of "arms" was at the time he penned the 2nd Amendment, but what we have witnessed over and over in this country probably wasn't it.
3
Hey Dakota,
Some of your classmates ARE protesting guns. But I think what most of them are really protesting is the proliferation and easy access to deadly weapons of war.
I honestly think most of us are fine with your lifestyle, and your responsible use of hunting instruments. We just don't believe you need weapons of war to conduct this lifestyle. And as a responsible gun owner, we assume that you agree that anyone who wants to possess a firearm should be required to demonstrate the technical ability, the mental stability, the understanding of the responsibility, and the acceptance of potential financial accountability of doing so. As I understand it, most responsible gun owners agree.
Ben
I think that this article and the accompanying opinion serve as a perfect example of the uphill battle when it comes to the issue of guns and gun culture in the United States.
While the debate mostly focuses on gun control legislation or the lack thereof, little attention is paid to the culture surrounding guns. And no, by that I don't mean movies, music or video games. I mean the relationship Americans have vis-a-vis their guns, their ownership and the mentality which fuels it all. A mentality and culture born out of an unshakable belief that guns and the right to own them are a fundamental aspect of American society.
The strict, narrow and even fundamentalist way in which the Second Amendment is frequently interpreted, is deeply entrenched in the psyche of the entire nation. It often crosses political, economic and societal boundaries.
Therefore I am afraid that any meaningful change or advance in terms of gun control legislation will be a problem that will continue and a substantial breakthrough is still far away.
For real change to occur it would take a fundamental shift in the mentality and culture surrounding guns in the United States of America and the way everyday American citizens of every stripe view and think about guns.
Until then, the vicious cycle of violence the US finds itself trapped into as a result of gun violence will continue unabated.
1
I don't think these school shooters are "asking for help," I think they feel entitled to hold other people's lives in their hands. They have the same access to information as the rest of us and they know they can go to any teacher, counselor, their own doctor, or other people they know. They understand you don't ask for help with a mass shooting. Even if they're mentally ill. That doesn't mean "stupid."
I agree the problem is with people and not with guns, though. In some places in the world where they can't easily get guns, they just use a knife or a machete instead. And you could argue, "But it's more difficult and they don't kill as many people." Sure, but some people are still dead from these events and who are you to say that doesn't matter as much?
Anyway, I want to hear more about kids who are shot to death by their own fathers which, if I am not mistaken, is a fairly widespread occurrence. But for some reason the media doesn't hold that worthy of inducing nationwide panic. (We don't have any more school shootings, on average, than we did thirty years ago.) But I say that if you can't be safe at home with your parents, where can you be safe?
Guns are fine. Assault weapons on our streets are not. Just look at the weapon of choice in most school shootings. This is the issue, not to be confused by responsible gun owners only muddying the waters with such Op-Ed’s.
The only place where the debate is about taking away all your guns and vilifying gun owners is on Fox News. SOME want to ban one weapon: the AR-15, but mostly people in these marches are just calling for sensible rules and regulations, not the extremist views of the NRA. The NRA has control of the GOP on this issue - even Trump said so. This teen might be surprised to know that many people who grew up in rural areas around guns do not support the NRA or feel that what is good policy in rural New Hampshire/Vermont should drive policy in large metropolitan areas.
He seems balanced. But other gun owners are not. Ban Guns in USA. Not even the pretext of defense. No more. Safety and life far outweigh freedom.
In truth, it is the easy access to guns that makes the United States unique in its attitude towards guns. In most enlightened nations, there is no issue with owning certain types of firearms. The difference is how guns are regulated, and what type of weapon is allowed for sale. Because we Americans tolerate a tremendous amount of gun violence, we can't fathom how other countries are relatively free of what we Americans consider the norm. Our police forces are militarized and intimating, and because they possess weapons as well, the cycle of gun mayhem and the deaths that will result will never cease.
It is a bitter price to pay for all so-called freedom we all extol so frequently.
If people, rather than firearms are the problem, how come every other country on earth have plenty of people (many who are mentally ill, and many who play Grand Theft Auto), very few firearms, and death rates from firearms that don't come remotely close to ours? Sorry for the run on sentence, but maybe it's because they have laws that were passed more recently than 230 years ago.
1
It is a mistake to think that those of us who are angry and frustrated about how easy it is to just go kill a bunch of people with a high powered weapon of war are against guns, against hunting against self defense.
Many of us understand that people hunt and have no problem with it or the guns used to hunt. The idea that we want to take all guns away is propaganda.
But this is a nation that allows us to make trade offs. To choose to give up one right to potent another. And so I have to ask: which right is more important? The right to survive high school or the right to have a weapon like an AR 15?
There is no easy solution. But clearly the kids who die, the concert goers who die, the people at an office who die, did not choose to give up their lives for the right to access weapons of war.
It isn't about us not understanding why people want guns. It is about us not understanding why people who have guns thonk they are more important than even one single slain student.
I grew up in farm country just like Dakota. My Dad, an Army vet and accomplished hunter, who is probably better with a bow than many "enthusiasts" with scoped rifles, taught me to shoot and how to respect and properly care for firearms. We raised livestock and butchered animals too and I remember taking NRA sponsored gun safety classes after school and proudly getting my patch. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with not wanting to get killed in normal walk-a-day life in the United States of America.
Unlike Dakota I know that military grade hardware doesn't belong in civilian hands and that not making them available doesn't curtail our freedoms. There was once a time in America where this was obvious and common sense. Maybe he'll understand better and more when he has a child of his own at school, at the movies, at a concert or at Church.
We used to be better.
1
Ignoring for the moment whether hunting is acceptable or not, no one is suggesting rescinding the Second Amendment or stripping citizens of their handguns or rifles ( although I personally would like to see that happen). However, why this young man would defend the availability of military grade weapons, especially to those he himself feels are unstable, is a mystery. AR-15s are not weapons of hobby- they are battlefield armaments and need to be banned. You want to fire one? Rent it at the range the way you rent bowling shoes at the alley- you dont get to own it.
Dakota,
Let's talk about hunting first. I personally haven't hunted in a long time but my friends who are really serious about hunting have something in common. Instead of opting for the high power rifles and scopes they have moved to black powder rifles and bow hunting. Being a hunter is more about the stalk and experiencing the moment. I would have to say they think that killing animals with raw firepower is just not what draws them to the sport, in fact that is not sport.
Now let's talk about guns. Hunters know guns as tools and tools have to be practical. None of them find any usefulness in an assault rifle. If you need that kind of firepower your not hunting. Shooting an AR is just a pure dopamine rush
unless your in a battle zone. By the way, that is what that rifle was designed for, not the woods, not your home and not a school.
Just because there is an amendment in the constitution about a militia doesn't mean everyone should have weapons of war.
Just saying.
Dakota, you say that you have shot an AR-15 before and that you are knowledgeable with regards to firearms. You claim that you don't shoot guns because you think they are cool. Just tools. OK, let's assume that I believe that as a teenager you don't do something because there is a cool factor. (I honestly don't actually believe ANY teenagers do ANYTHING without there being SOME cool factor, but let's just say for the point of argument guns aren't cool). As a person knowledgeable about guns as tools, what's an AR-15 used for and why? Because if you don't have one - then maybe you're saying hunters and "target practice" aficionados don't need them. That's kind of what the students from Parkland are saying, by the way.
The problem with this article is that it reinforces the false narrative of gun owners as a kind of misunderstood or persecuted class of people. Gun ownership is not a culture, it's a consumer choice. Even though its a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it is not an absolute right, and in the same way some forms of speech are not protected because they are harmful, some types of gun ownership are unequivocally harmful.
What gets me is that gun culture people seem to have such a sense of entitlement that they ability to pursue their gun hobby with essentially no restrictions of any kind should somehow be protected even at the cost of the vast majority of other people's reasonable worries about what this means to everyone else's health and safety. They don't get a free pass by saying the problem is with people not people with guns or fantasies about defending freedom from oppressive governments.
3
Everyone in this thread shares one premise that I’m happy to see: that Dakota is a real honest-to-goodness gun-owning kid whose engagement in this issue is worthy of our respect even as we debate the issues she raises.
Dakota has enjoyed far more respect here than the Parkland kids have enjoyed elsewhere. No one has raised the possibility that this letter came from the NRA (and c’mon, if you were the NRA, you would surely name your fictional spokesperson Dakota, yes?). That scenario is entirely possible –– at least as possible and far easier than for the Parkland kids to be “crisis actors” paid by gun safety advocates or Soros or Glinda the Good Witch or pick-your-strawperson.
But NO ONE here has used that remote possibility to shut down the conversation rather than engage with the issues raised here on the basis of logic.
This decade is making me cynical and my worst assumptions are usually right, but thanks, thread-writers, for being 100% regardless of context, which these days is far less.
For the record, thanks for your engagement in this serious issue Dakota, if that is your real name. If it is, use it to register for hunting lessons so you don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer.
1
Almost no one in most metropolitan areas "hunts" for food any longer.
Sure, some folks take guide-led "hunting" trips to "bag" a "trophy" ram from 400 yards. They don't "hunt" with AR-15's, though. They hunt with "hunting rifles", some so smart, they figure the distance, the wind and track the "target" for the "hunter". Siri said "press the trigger now", right.
School children don't need to learn this. More time spent explaining why intentionally killing animals from a quarter mile away is "fun" might be more meaningful. Perhaps a local NRA trigger guy can stop in with a Disney-like animated story about why little "Rammy" grew to be just the right size for Bo Buckbuster, the 16 year old new-gunner, to"take-out".
Dakota is wrong. Firearms aren't cool. They are a deadly tool for killing other creatures including other human beings. But those AR-15 guns are like taking a Saws-all to a knife fight.
Finally, I don't believe that Dakota is right that "people who use guns in mass shootings" are using them to get help. If so, they wouldn't end their actions by taking their own lives. For them, they express their frustration, their anger, their disappointment, for them guns are the ultimate "punt". If they didn't have access to ANY guns, they wouldn't have had to kill others, just themselves.
You see, if these demonstrations were about repealing the 2nd Amendment and taking away everyone's guns, then I would agree more with this kid. But my understanding is they are about having stricter gun laws in an effort to prevent school shootings. How is he or anyone else not okay with that? This article reads like he thinks the protests are about outlawing all guns, across the board...
The problem with the gun crises is not guns anymore than either the opioid crisis is about illicit drugs, lung cancer is about cigarettes or automobile accidents are about cars. The problem is the combination of the wrong people and the activity. The young, the old and reckless run their lives in a manner that invites disaster. The young are inexperienced . The old are hampered by declining abilities and the reckless are just plain stupid. Society has learned to insulate these three groups from destructive behaviors. Senior citizen drivers are charged more for automobile insurance and they have to jump through more hoops to maintain a driver's licence. We are driving cars that are chock full of safety equipment and they soon may be driverless. Young drivers also pay more for insurance and have more restrictions. Cigarettes now cost not only a lung but an arm and a leg. The war on drugs hasn't been a success but that is because the politicians in the US don't take it seriously. That leaves guns. What we need is legislation that isolates the young, the old and the reckless from guns. That's what Australia did.
Do you use the AR-15 to hunt game? Is it possible to hunt without an AR-15? I respect your right own and use weapons. But the Suprene Court ruled that that right is not unlimited. There is room for compromise here. Banning bump stocks, closing the gun show loop hole. However, many of the members of your gun culture refuse to accept even the most sensible gun safety laws. Many of us urbanites get it. You hunt. You fish. You farm. You raise animals. I respect all of this. However, a gun policy that allows the sale of assault weapons meant for battlefields to illegal immigrants, the mentally ill, and convicted felons at Gun Shows is a bad policy. It’s simple.
The mass shooters of all stripes seemed exquisitely knowledgable of the rules, regulations, and handling of firearms. Oh the irony!
1
Nice try, kid. However, "Firearms aren't the problem—people are" is an old and poorly worn trope. Any murderer is definitely a problem. But it is the duty of a civilized society to limit the destruction that such a person can cause. Semiautomatic weapons are also a problem and should be illegal because of their potential for quick mass destruction and because there is no civilized use for them. These are the same reasons civilians cannot own a machine gun, a flamethrower, a bazooka, nerve gas, or a tank.
The NRA’s false re-framing of the narrative is again in evidence in this young man’s opinion. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is simultaneously false, and not the issue. The re-framing starts with an assumption which I accept: it is difficult to control evil human intent. Nonetheless, guns do kill people, as follows.
Guns *amplify* evil human intent, in terms of the number of people harmed. Guns *accelerate* evil human intent, in terms of the number of people harmed per unit time. Guns *magnify* evil human intent, in terms the damage caused. Guns make evil human intent virtually *instantaneous*, delayed only by the time it takes a thought to transmit to a trigger finger. Guns make evil human intent *irrevocable*, because of this instantaneity. And guns *extend* dramatically the reach of evil human intent, because bullets kill and maim at a distance, rather than simply within arm's reach.
It's difficult to control evil human intent. But, we *can* control the number of weapons available to evil humans, to realize their intentions. 90% of crimes are committed using weapons purchased legally but without registration. Most of these sales occur privately, or through gun shows. 2/3s of gun-related deaths are suicides: guns make death certain when one intends self-harm; but if guns are less available, then the odds of survival increase.
If we believe it is possible to "butcher animals humanely," this may be part of the problem.
Why do people's right to own guns outweigh people's right to not get murdered in school??? It makes absolutely no sense. Maybe Dakota should start listening to his peers instead of losing his hearing shooting guns.
This is the one of the more useless Op-Ed pieces I've read in a long time -- so now we're showing that teenagers can have the same misguided opinions that their parents taught them? Is this the NYT being fair and balanced? Sad.
As a proponent of strong gun control laws based on its proven effectiveness in other countries with a similar historical reliance on individual firearms (e.g., Australia), I frankly don't care about Dakota's reasoning about his "right" to own and use a gun for whatever purpose. Nor should I be required to burn precious mental energy trying to understand Dakota's point of view. None of that matters.
I do not need to walk a mile in Dakotas' shoes to fully experience the emotional shock and horror that an unchecked supply of guns and ammunition wreaks on society daily. The bottom line is that the public health crisis that widespread access to guns has caused related to suicide, domestic violence and, to a actually lesser-but far-more-widely-reported extent, mass shootings is real, regardless of what any of us "think." The key is what we will do about it, if anything. So far, the "measured" approach Dakota seems to support seems so implausible that you have to question whether real support is there, or just pandering to appear in this forum.
Maybe the NYT will return to publishing opinions that offer a fundamental challenge to the way we see the world. You know, promote durable change and all. I guess that must be too much to ask for these days.
Responsible gun owners like Dakota and his family need to turn against the NRA, which is the real problem in this debate. They stifle any reasonable dialogue and foment fear and paranoia. Does the NRA represent accurately your views and values, Dakota? Then lecture them, please.
Why does anyone need an AR-15?
Is game edible after being shot that way?
Just asking.
I live in an area where deer hunting is common and revered. I have asked several hunters if they could use a "gun" similar to the military type AR-15 weapon mentioned in this young gentleman's article during the legal hunting season. Every hunter to whom I have spoken said that they could not. Reason? It tears up the animal, making it useless as food or trophy. They use an appropriate rifle for this purpose. While I am not a gun advocate, I realize that hunting for deer is not the same as hunting for fellow humans. I have no issue with deer hunting, although it is not something that will ever draw me.
When will gun advocates, of any age, separate weapons of war from sporting rifles? Until then, I have no use for anything that this young man had to say.
1
What a well spoken young man who seems wiser than his contemporaries. I have found as a result of discussions that people who are against gun ownership know very little about firearms other than that they are "bad". Not leaving out self-defense, many people in this country depend upon firearms to economically put meat on the table. Many people who eat meat but are against hunting are hypocrites because they leave the harvesting to others. AR15's are excellent rifles for hunting. "Assault rifle" is a scary term used by those who should know better but the only true assault rifles are in the hands of the military and police; they are fully automatic (most anti-gun folks do not know what this means) and it is a violation of federal law for a civilian to have one. An AR15 is simply a regular semi-automatic rifle with a handle. Is the handle that scary? Really, now...
1
dakota, wish people had s better way/plan to cry for help besides using ar 15. just because you have one and so far have used it safely does not mean they should be legal. they are war weapons. if my hobby was creating nuclear bombs, would that be ok as long as i didnt hurt anyone? there are good reasons for allowing guns and rifles, but i cant think of any for allowing high capacity automatic weapons. Besides having fun with yours, can you offer me a valid reason to have one?
1
Well said Dakota and one of your requests is already in place. Licensed Federal Firearms dealers have the legal authority to refuse or delay transactions (and regularly exercise this judgement) to people they deem suspicious or unqualified when doing the required federal backgound check.
Your request for respect from all parties is refreshing after hearing all the talk this past week that firearms owners are largely in favor of murdering children when the issue is disagreements about what exact policies or laws might be helpful.
6
“Guns are cool” is tone-deaf and highly insensitive in light of all the tragic MISuses of guns that leave us all grieving innocent lives. If you’re not personally stricken with grief and moved to action (social, political) from Parkland or other mass shootings, then I pray you will grow in empathy and conscience until each lost life is like your brother or sister or father or mother. We need to change the laws on guns NOW and unfortunately for those who stand between us and the deadliest guns, you’re on the wrong side of history and the people have spoken.
11
Hunting for the most part goes with following the rules, which involve never ever include pointing a gun at another person or leaving a loaded gun untended. Any gun safety class should include visual depiction of people who have committed suicide and been murdered and a large number of stories that detail the harm that is done. If people are not shocked and appalled, that is a good sign they lack the humanity required to have an instrument of death.
5
I think that victims of gun violence have every right to present their point of view. Non-gun owners are a clear majority and it's not right to insinuate that they are being unreasonable, because they don't know about guns.
I hear you, but it is up to people in your family and others to rally gun- owners to be reasonable.
Gun massacres happen in rural areas, too.
4
“Firearms are not the problem, people are”.
No, the problem we all want to solve is a person w malign intent w an assault weapon. So we can try to do something about one or the other, or both.
Also, one kind of gun control, such as an assault weapon ban, does not lead to banning or taking away all weapons. That’s NRA propaganda.
The NRA used to be about gun safety training. Now it’s about something unreasonable and senseless: fighting against any restrictions on guns.
I fail to see how “understanding” guns is a prerequisite to speaking or acting about gun violence. Seems like the only way to “understand” guns in this context is to own and enjoy guns.
Nonetheless, Dakota has made a brave attempt to move the national discussion forward. 1500 comments. Good job, young man!
7
I grew up in a rural community and come from a family that has a similar relationship to guns as this author so I understand the mindset of the average gun owner. Most gun owners would never use their weapons to hurt another human being. Gun rules are needed to protect us from the few who abuse weapons and use them to hurt people. With rights comes responsiblity and that seems to get lost in this debate.
2
The problem IS people, but in reality, these people can’t efficiently mow down three dozen people in a matter of a few minutes without a gun. Gun control is not about the guns, it’s about people. very few people want to ban guns, or take them away from responsible gun owners. The issue is doing everything possible to keep guns away from people who might do harm with them. There is also the issue of the appropriateness of an untrained civilian population being allowed to purchase guns capable of killing many people per minute without sufficient screening.
Again, gun control is about people. it’s about doing everything we can to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. We don’t do that now.
5
Hi Dakota, thanks for sharing your ideas; particularly interesting is the idea of Police teaching about firearms.
I’m a former health education teacher.
Eliminate AR-15 rifles and there will be just as many massacres and the body counts will still be horrendous even if the number is reduced. Most gun violence is done with handguns, the smaller caliber models with the least kick, and with bullets that tear through bodies in jagged paths that are hard to repair. Every gun is a lethal weapon. What makes guns safe are people who take care to keep them from being used to do harm. With 110 million gun owners and over 300 million guns, the numbers tell us that gun owners almost all keep their guns from being used to harm people. So the actual risk of being harmed with a gun is relatively low. But the actual numbers of people harmed is the largest of all the developed countries, and that is the problem to be solved. And in any case though the frequency of violence to guns is low, the consequences are neither trivial nor acceptable. So how to do it?
Eliminate the guns? That is not a rational solution. Too many people own them and prevent them from being used to harm others to justify a confiscation or even to justify banning semi-automatic weapons as fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, etc. were made illegal to own without federal license in the 1930's. In any case, to get all the guns without the cooperation of the owners would be nearly impossible. It would take a national emergency permitting the suspension of civil rights to even start.
Listen to this person, he and his family and most gun owners are not threats.
1
There are obviously many in this country who believe, as this young man does, that if we can just educate people on the proper use of firearms then far fewer of the bad things that happen with guns would happen. It is thinking so simplistic and naive that it's almost quaint.
4
Dakota,
Thank you for writing this piece. It is well written and from the heart. I don't know any gun owners or hunters and have questions. So I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully ask you a few of those questions. First, what is the purpose of the AR-15? How do you use it and how do you keep someone who would misuse it from gaining access. With respect to all of the guns you own, death by guns is most often due to suicide, often by young men like yourself. If you were depressed, how would your parents know you were depressed, and protect you from using a gun to harm yourself? I find guns scary and wonder what you feel is cool about them. As for hunting: I don't understand the pleasure of taking the life of an animal. Can you tell me why you find it enjoyable to kill something, even if you eat it?
3
I'm sure to echo the protests of other commenters to this piece, but I feel too strongly to avoid repeating them.
In providing enjoyment to the writer and a slim minority of U.S. enthusiasts, assault weapons are endangering the majority. This arm was always intended for taking into battle and its growing use to maximize civilian deaths virtually guarantees harm to far more innocents than would any other permitted weapon. No other tool comes close.
The whole notion that mass shooters are "seeking help" with semi-automatic rifles does not mean we have sufficient ways to otherwise provide it. The "vast majority" of these killers are not mentally ill, according to the American Psychiatric Association. Many are troubled in ways that we don't know how to uniformly resolve in a society dedicated to personal freedoms. Hanchett himself says they've likely sought aid before but haven't received it. That's the point.
The writer says most U.S. kids are not taught about firearm safety but rather to shun guns. That's another reason why semi-automatic weapons should not be within civilian reach. We cannot force arms lessons upon everybody so the more dangerous the weapon the tougher the access must be.
A personal observation: Hanchett enjoys hunting, and it's his right. But he wants to argue students for opposing it -- and whose motives are clearly humane. When you don't need to kill for food, safety or other resources, you'll have a hard time convincing non-enthusiasts why it's OK.
8
You are showing your own closed-mindedness with your last paragraph: "I think the people who are afraid of guns should talk to the people who are familiar with them."
You are assuming that people promoting gun control are "afraid" of guns. I am not afraid or unfamiliar with guns. I enjoy sport shooting and, if I may be immodest, I've won awards as a very sure shot.
I don't own any guns, though, because I have children and would not want any guns in my home. I'm in the suburbs, not in rural American, and I'd rather leave security to our police department. (I also don't own any fire fighting equipment beyond a few small extinguishers.)
Some of us think that hunting is just fine, but there is no reason for any civilian to own an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine. And I personally have no problem with *extensive* background checks, licensing, and insurance. And I'll still happily go to a range to shoot if I wish.
And, by the way, there is no right for a citizen to own military grade weapons in the 2nd amendment -- not by my reading, or by the SCOTUS "Heller" decision.
15
This young fellow presents an excellent argument about the other side of being able to own guns but using them responsibly. He is articulate and well informed and quite mature for his age. He is correct about stronger gun control and safety checks for ownership by gun store owners. People kill people and most people who own guns are not going on shooting rampages. He would make an excellent spokesman for gun safety and the right to bear arms. It is so nice to hear the opposing view for a change.
7
Interesting thoughts, Dakota. We have people who hunt here in Australia, too. They use their guns to hunt on their properties.
We also ban automatic and semi automatic weapons, because we know that hunters don't need them. The hunters know it, too.
We also heavily restrict those firearms to people who need them, not who want them. Those who need them respect and appreciate this.
We also have not had a mass shooting in 22 years.
22. years.
Yes, it is important to listen to the point of view of others, but it is also important to be realistic. You can dream all you like that all gun owners in America are responsible like you, but all it takes is for one person to snap, and that person, their family, total strangers, can die, in the tens if not the hundreds. With great power comes great responsibility, and sometimes you need to give up what you want for the betterment of others. Unfortunately Americans haven't figured that bit out yet, but I hope that you and your hunting friends will come to understand that you have the greatest power to stand up for those with no voice - like children, and the mentally ill - and make positive change to help them.
15
Oh, but there is a place where youth can learn about gun safety - and there are multiple branches to choose from.
I did this, and I would credit it with shaping my views on firearm ownership (and I am a gun owner) I would credit it for why I do not own an AR-15 now. Cool is definitely not the word I thought of when lugging around a M16, M9, and a belt full of clips. Cool is not the word that came out of my mouth when my father told me he had purchased an AR-15. He has no real need for one, and neither do you.
I do not agree with your reasoning, but commend you on expressing a more important and fundamental right. That's why I, and many others, picked up a government sponsored lesson in gun safety in the first place.
5
I appreciate this young man's desire for respectful and open-minded discourse. Unfortunately, he seems to misconstrue the beliefs and goals of those demonstrating. The walkouts are not "protesting guns." No one is "afraid" of a gun that doesn't have someone pulling the trigger. Like this author, many of us actually own guns, and yet still "believe in gun control and that there should be stricter rules that require all gun sellers to do federal background checks."
I think he might be surprised to learn that he and most of his protesting classmates actually agree about a lot.
4
I appreciate the calm discussion from the author. But modern civilization no longer has a significant place for guns. 30,000 people per year lose their lives because we have > 300M guns in the US. It's long past time for us to join the modern world and remove most guns from society. Very few hunters should have them, and only when they have passed the most stringent possible qualifications. I recognize that we won't reach this goal in my lifetime, but we should start thinking about where society really needs to go, and how to get there.
3
I agree with you about background checks for ALL gun sellers.
You say "Many of the young people protesting guns right now seem to have very little knowledge about gun rules and regulations." For some that is not true: we know gun safety and we know it is not used by very many people.
What Mr. Hanchett fails to see should be obvious: this is about money. The gun manufacturing industry wants to sell more guns, and have lobbied successfully to sell as many as possible. They frame the entire debate by conflating sensible gun regulation with tyranny, and taking an absolutist view of the second amendment. They've succeeded at creating a situation where citizens have become irrational or completely miss the larger picture.
One simply has to look at other developed countries and the statistics there. Take a look at the UK, Germany, Japan, etc. We are an outlier in the world in the number of guns we have, and that's because the multi-billion dollar industry has worked diligently over many decades to create an environment where it's considered normal. We have to understand this first before we have any kind of meaningful conversation.
No one is coming for your guns. But there is no reason whatsoever to justify an environment that's been created by the gun business.
3
Thank you Dakota for sharing this side of view.
It’s probable that mass shooters had used guns as tool to cry for help but such tools not only didn’t lead them to the urgent assistance needed but also grant them the out-of-proportional power to ask for help at the huge expenses of others’ lives, especially with rifles like AR-15. It’s also probable that our mental health could’ve reached further for these people, but on this long shot of having the mental health system catching up from its infancy, proper gun regulations, such as universal background check you mentioned, need to meet us half way, or this suffer will almost certain to continue its toll on the people.
On the note of education of gun use and general knowledge on guns , I agree that such program should be first invented and implemented into school programs. Only when people know better about guns, could we debate the topic more productively. However, even topic you draw parallel to, such as Sex Ed and Drug abuse, to my knowledge, weren’t prevalent enough in many states yet. Just as mentioned above, when such progress is still immature and in early development, we hope gun regulations could meet them half way to put a pause on this suffering.
1
We should not want large standing armies in peacetime, and we do not want a draft. Other countries can rely on the United States to protect them, and many do. While we may have capable and dependable allies (Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, Denmark, Norway), the United States has no one we can substantially depend on for either our own defense or to meet our treaty obligations.
This brings me to an understanding that existed when I was a boy in the 1950's and 1960's. We learn to shoot a rifle as a way to avoid large standing armies, and now the draft, by preparing young men to serve only when needed, but if needed then with some basic familiarity and skill.
Today we seem to imagine that our largely unknown and invisible military will defend us, and we make that an answer we don't need to think about anymore. We make it someone else's problem.
Now we have sick, twisted, isolated individuals who exploit our openness, but equally, we have a know-nothing public that shirks its basic responsibilities of citizenship, and public agencies that fail to protect us even when alerted repeatedly. Perhaps it's reached the point where we can no longer be trusted with our own freedoms.
I have my Shapshooter Bar 9 achievement from the NRA. I think Dakota makes some important points, but I would argue that his endorsement of gun control laws in the fourth-to-final paragraph puts him (as it does me) at odds with the NRA. It leads me to believe that he would have been well-served to join his classmates. I don't think that any of them imagine that the problem is exclusively firearms and not people. That relationship is precisely what regulation would address.
2
Dakota, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I often see a different picture than what you painted but I enjoy hearing your perspective and that it made me consider things in a different light. I definitely think that the root the issue is lack of community, and that we can come together to take better care of one another through counseling, support of our neighbors and their kids with positive encouragement and a helping hand, education and resources on both mental illness and weapon safety. thank you for sharing what I discern from other comments was an unpopular perspective, but you are right, we need to slow down and review the complexities of these issues so we can cut the tree at the root instead of sawing branches off where inevitablely others will grow.
So a gun seller has an hour and should use his common sense to figure out who can buy a gun? The gun seller is there to sell and has no expertise in mental health diagnosis. Therefore we cannot rely on gun sellers to regulate gun purchase. Easy access to guns inevitably means higher death rates by gunshot than countries with reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. At a minimum we need to remove the right to own assault weapons, automatic or semi automatic, and equipment that can modify guns to give them that capacity.
1
So much of the gun control debate is counterproductive and angry. I didn't have exposure to guns until I was in my 30s. I like shooting. I think I will eventually hunt with my firearm (a 20 gauge shotgun) but it's a difficult culture to enter, for an outsider, and the gun control debate is so divisive that I've divided friends and family into pro-gun and anti-gun. I wouldn't have to do that if people would, in Mr Hanchett's words, " be respectful, listen, be honest, and not get upset..." I'm middle aged, and I don't have much hope that people will follow that advice, but i'm pleased that at least one young person sees the importance of what is, essentially, just civil behavior.
2
What rarely gets mentioned is that the NRA doesn’t represent all or most gun owners, but only a small percentage who are members. Make no mistake, the NRA represents gun manufacturers and associated businesses who profit from them, not people. They equate gun ownership with freedom and the American way via an interpretation of the second amendment that ignores the part about a well regulated militia. NRA dollars go to fund campaigns of politicians who are NRA friendly, and they are for the most part, very successful in getting their candidates elected. Gun Control is a term used to imply loss of freedom. People in favor of stronger licensing and regulation of guns should stop helping the NRA by supporting gun control. I have 4 guns, two of which are semi-automatic handguns. I like to shoot at targets. I shoot my shotguns at clay pigeons. I don’t hunt and I don’t think of guns as self defense because even though I have significant training, I doubt that under extreme stress I would have the presence of mind to decide whether taking someone’s life is necessary. Look at the police who are trained specifically for that decision and you can see it’s not an easy one. I don’t see guns as a right but as a privilege for meeting the proper regulatory requirements and I would feel that way if those regulations were significantly strengthened. And if I don’t qualify under stronger regulations, take my guns from my warm, alive hands, please.
1
Thank you for sharing your opinion, Dakota. It can be difficult to stand up for your beliefs in a crowd of peers, and I understand that. You make a final request that people listen to one another. However, I am not sure that you are listening to your classmates either. School walkouts are also calling for gun safety and expanded education - of course this also includes an assault rifle ban. I do not think that an AR-15 will be of any use to you or anyone else in any of your hunting hobbies. A school walkout is calling for attention from government officials to act against a harmful gun lobby. It is in fact advocating for some regulations similar to those you note in your article, albeit perhaps more involved than a one hour background check. However, none of the action items that these walkouts profess directly conflict with your ability to continue hunting with rifles. I too have spent time learning to safely handle and shoot rifles for sport. I completely respect you for being brave and sharing your opinion, but I think that perhaps you missed the point of the walkout.
Dakota, not even a highly-trained psychiatrist could determine in one hour if someone might use a gun safely. This is why every country in the world (except for ours and Yemen) has stricter gun laws. For example, in Canada it often can take up to two years to properly vet a gun applicant. Friends, family, work colleagues, former teachers, clergy, physicians, neighbors, and others are carefully questioned, and even so, it does not guarantee that gun ownership will be granted. Most countries have an even stricter vetting process. The United States has a "Friday night at the OK Corral" mentality. By a very large margin, we have the second (Yemen is first) highest gun-by-homicide rate in the world. Take a little time to acquaint yourself with Canada's gun laws, keeping in mind they're not as strict as most. Inform yourself how the rest of the world lives.
3
Kudos and compliments to Dakota for weighing in on this. It’s a good thing that he has taken the time to explain his family and personal life relative to firearms, so that we can understand from his perspective as a young person in a rural locale. What Dakota should try to understand though, is that not everyone lives in such a place. Our difficulty with firearms as a nation stems from our living in widely divergent communities. His community of Grafton County NH, for instance, holds 52 people per square mile, while mine in Alameda County, California holds 1800 (despite large forested and farming tracts). In our area, the police can respond in minutes, and our neighbors are nearby if we need help, and hunting is a very uncommon activity. It is not a coincidence that opinions in lightly- and densely-populated areas differ on gun control. I have no problem with Dakota and his family owning and using their guns. The problem I have is with gun advocates like NRA absolutists forcing their way of life on people in my area who overwhelmingly do not want guns, or to have guns in the hands of irresponsible owners, or to have guns flaunted in streets and workplaces, or to have rapid-fire weapons around that can do great harm to dozens of people in minutes. I look forward to an account from a young person like Dakota but from an urban area, who can lay out their own experience and speak for why so many of them are leading on gun issues in the other direction.
Courageous piece, Dakota. Cool name too, by the way. You make some good suggestions. One I have trouble with is your encouragement to rely on the common sense of gun sellers to determine who can buy a gun. We don’t ask car dealers to act in this regard. Car buyers have already gone through rigorous testing over much more than one hour to earn a drivers license. Once they get to the dealership, they’ve passed those tests and the car dealer knows they can sell them a car. We can’t rely on gun dealers to exercise common sense. We have to do our best to create and support a sensible system and process much like the local motor vehicle bureau to make sure the right guns are legally owned by the right people.
By refusing to walk out w your classmates, it appeared that it was more important for you to protect guns than honor lives lost. The walkout primarily was to honor students just like you and your friends, not the guns. May you find it in your heart to remember always: people first then things.
1
Nobody shoots seventeen people to death because they're "seeking help."
3
No, they do it because they are mentally unstable at the very least.
When all levels of government combine to leave the Nikolas Cruzes of the world able to buy guns - and then a high school allows such a bulky rifle to be brought into a building! - you can expect a few more of these each year.
And have we canceled the Promise program that paid money to schools & police NOT to arrest & convict teens?
Considering that he called the police himself-I think you could definitely say he needed help.
Governments that deny their citizens the private right to keep and bear arms (e.g. Nazi Germany; Soviet Russia) have killed millions and millions and millions more people (their own citizens, and others) than governments (like the U.S. government, per the 2nd Amendment) that permit their citizens to keep and bear arms. 90%+ of NY Times commentators would be perfectly happy to see all private firearms confiscated by the Federal government. Thanks to our written Constitution, and its high hurdles for amendment, that will never happen.
5
The correlation is specious at best. But I have a more relevant stat for you - more children are shot to death in countries that have unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction (only one - the U.S.) than in the more civilized countries that value innocent life more than a misunderstood and deliberately mischaracterized "right".
1
I’m not from America, but I am from the Commonwealth. This used to include America, but now it includes the UK and other ex-British colonies. We all have strict gun laws and some even impose the death penalty for people who carry guns without prior authorisation. I have yet to see a mass killing in any of these countries whether by the government or by a private gun toting bad guy. Stop using your straw man argument. Disarming people is not even a necessary let alone a sufficient condition for mass carnage on the scale of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. This can easily be done with the use of drones. The only thing restraining a government from doing that is the character of its members at the end of the day. The check and balance on corruption and fascism should not be the gun but the law.
1
Dakota - give one good reason other than the Second Amendment why someone like you NEEDS an AR-15. That would be the beginning of any conversation I would have with you on gun reform. I'm waiting....
5
for the same reason any law enforcement officer has one, self-defense.
Well since I doubt a jr high student will be answering comments, I'll give an answer. It's a lot easier to use a gun similar to the AR-15 to defend our sheep than it is to use a bolt action rifle or a handgun
I served in the US Army. I know how to use an automatic weapon to kill people.
Are you using an AR-15 for hunting?
Next time join your school's walkout and learn why the walkout.
7
I'm willing to bet that I know more about guns than you [or, to be fair, anyone living] knows about what it's like when you're dead.
5
Is it asking too much of owners of AR-15s to relinquish their hobby of shooting military weapons for fun if it will save the lives of children and make it more difficult for mass-murderers to kill quickly?
8
Yes is is as it will not work. An AR-15 is an ordinary rifle that looks like a military rifle. A pistol or shot gun can kill people very quickly too.
While I appreciate the author’s calm, earnest tone, he creates a false villain. Anyone who doesn’t “fear” a gun is a fool. In any and all circumstances, a gun is a potential lethal force.
5
Can guns be used to kill people? Yes.
Is access to guns far too easy right now? Yes.
Has the NRA put a deahtgrip on any reasonable negotiations about gun control? Yes.
I know all I need to know about guns, Dakota.
8
Dakota, you, and people like you, are not the problem. You respect guns; more importantly you respect people. You support reasonable gun controls. It's the people who become unhinged and hysterical at any suggestion of limiting arms, like the current head of the NRA, that are the problem. I am sorry that in your school the debate has been reduced to "guns good vs. guns bad." We all need to think more deeply than that.
2
This boy has bought the NRA line that people who want gun control hate all guns. We need more regulation of guns. No one needs an AR 15 but I suppose they would be acceptable if kept at gun clubs. I think we need background checks and gun registration. How fair is it that I can know about sex offenders in my neighborhood but I can’t know my neighbor owns an AR 15 or has a weapons stockpile. What’s wrong with regulating how guns are stored and requiring competency and safety training like they do in most other countries. Few of us “ant-gun” people are against hunting. Although if you accidentally shoot me or my family while hunting I want the right to sue you just as if you’d hit me with your car. Guns are lethal weapons and should be regulated. I’m sorry that you only se 2 sides to this problem.
9
The sex offender broke a law. The neighbor with an AR-15 and a weapons stockpile hasn't.
I remember the early 1960s when you could buy an M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, other rifles, and ammunition thru the US mail. The only mass shooting I recall occurred on Aug. 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off.
I have never owned a rifle that fires 5.56×45mm NATO (.223) because the .223 is good for shooting small game only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO
I applaud young people taking the time to get involved in issues that need to be discussed and will, whether they are ready or not, to have to take on these issues from the older generation. That said, Dakota could benefit from looking a little closer at his views. He says that “. . .firearms aren’t the problem — people are.” This is a manufactured talking point from the NRA and he is in danger of simply being their mouth piece when he prattles this nonsense. I, like others here, would like to hear his justification for having arms that are meant for one thing; killing people. There are good reasons why people oppose guns, and we have been held hostage to the NRA for too long. Now it is time to have the full discussion! Why, for example, does the NRA forbid any research to be compiled on fire arm deaths and other statistics that could help make wise choices on guns? I remember a time when one did not have to worry if the person next to you had a concealed firearm and if he was going to go ballistic and shoot someone. Now that is a present danger almost everywhere and it is nuts. I only go to the US when I have to now, because I am terrified of all the guns everywhere. The NRA tells us that only a good person with a gun can protect against a bad person with a gun. This is patient nonsense! I would like to hear what young gun lovers have to say about these issues. It was not as crazy in the USA just 30 years ago, and it would be wise to look at how and why that changed.
1
I challenge the assumption that hunting, a common justification for owning guns, is a legitimate sport. How is it sporting to go out in nature and blast the brains out of an innocent animal that is going about its life? I have this question for hunters: Before you shot it, how did that animal signal, convey or communicate to you that it no longer wanted to live?
3
Dear Dakota Hanchett.
Your family has raised you around guns all your life. They have imparted their wisdom to you about the "rights and wrongs about firearms safety". You have gotten to LIKE guns, because they are cool. And oh by the way, they are also practical tools for killing wild animals.
There are many, many people like you, who like guns, and enjoy killing wild animals for sport, and enjoy the thrill of destroying inanimate objects with high-powered firearms like the AR-15. In our capitalistic, free-market economy, people who enjoy guns create considerable market demand. Naturally suppliers are eager to accommodate. So there are people who want guns just because they enjoy them, and people who build and sell guns because they can make a profit at it.
But the potential for gun ownership abuse is very high, and the price of gun ownership abuse is priceless: the spontaneous, painful, violent destruction of innocent lives at any time, in any of the 50 states.
Let's eliminate some irrational aspects of the debate right now: "gun safety" is an oxymoron because guns are designed to be dangerous. And common sense dictates that when the problem is the abuse potential of too many guns in too many hands, the solution is to reduce both.
Yes, the way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate gun ownership. The benefit to society will be immeasurable. The cost to gun owners, well, I guess they will face the inconvenience of finding new pastimes to enjoy.
3
And there you have it ... "eliminate gun ownership".
I'm sending another $100 to the NRA.
There are seventeen students from Parkland, Florida who didn't join their school's walkout either.
2
It may be the people. But other countries with similar demographics have much stricter gun laws. Why don't they have these crazy mass shootings every couple of months?
3
Switzerland requires all males to have a working rifle in their home and to know how to use it. It is part of their national defense. Right now in Germany women are hiding at home for fear of being assaulted because they live in a country where a woman can easily be overpowered and outnumbered without any sort of recourse. Can you not see where having a concealed handgun would be an advantage?
There is a reason kids are afraid of you because you own firearms. It's because you own firearms! As you know, they maim and kill. I'd be afraid of you also.
One doesn't need to know much about guns and regulations to protest about guns. All that we need to know is that guns maim and kill. We desperately need gun licensing, registration, training and insurance.
Yes, they can be used safely but if you've followed the news for the past 20 years you'll see they're often not used safely (they're involved in an inordinate number of domestic violence situations) and that they maim and kill.
And there is no reason whatsoever that anyone should own an assault rifle. NONE.
4
Dakota, your school's walkout was never about making it impossible or illegal to buy guns. It was about putting pressure on the politicians to make rules that prevent the wrong people to buy guns and about which types of guns should be allowed for private citizens. For you, the AR-15 is a toy, something you use to shoot beer cans and paper targets, but that is not the purpose of that weapon. The purpose of an AR-15 is to kill human beings. It is not suitable for hunting anything except humans. It is not even suitable for hunting a single human, it only "shines" when there are many targets that you need to hit in a short time.
A strict, European type, gun control would probably not have prevented Stephen Paddock to buy guns because he was white, rich and off the radar. But reasonable gun laws would most certainly have prevented Nikolas Cruz from buying guns. And reasonable gun laws would not have given Stephen Paddock access to rapid firing assault rifles.
I know it is fun to fire a gun. The power, the noise. It is much less fun when someone firing a gun at you.
There are so many forms of entertainment available for us and for power and noise there's always motorcycles. For all the danger they present to humans, at least they are not designed to murder them.
5
"but firearms aren’t the problem — people are." Exactly! How do we know that a kid your age doesn't have mental problems and could go insane on a random moment, who thinks like you that having guns is cool and was something he grew up with???? Think beyond the second amendment for a second. You don't know....
So, why not support the right to have a gun with responsibility and regulations that ensure that other people, with guns or not, also have the "right" to live and feel safe on any public or private place???? You say you believe in gun control and stricter rules, so that would have been enough to support your classmates...
3
I guess they don't teach what the Strawman fallacy is in junior high, anymore.
"I own firearms not only because I think they are cool, but also because they are considered a tool in my family. "
You kind of failed to substantiate that buddy
1
Using guns to seek help? When so many end up killing themselves?
1
Dakota, it's unfortuate that you've bought the NRA's "all or nothing" story line. Your classmates (as a whole) were not protesting for the end of all guns. Gun laws designed to stop evil-minded people from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them to shoot up crowded places like schools would have very little impact on your lifestyle. You observe that the protesters simply don't understand, but frankly, your statement that "guns can be used safely" reflects a seriously immature understanding of the problem for someone your age. Maybe you need to start listening also.
2
Perhaps not.
You might feel differently if you were present at the same time your home was being invaded.
1
Oh please. What possible excuse is there for owning an AR15?
3
DAKOTA HANCHETT knows first hand what a firearm does.
You aim, pull the trigger and a living creature is dead. Unlike video games no reset button. He then field dresses the carcass, and later butchers it.
I think if you took all the boys out and had them butcher an animal perhaps they would realize how fragile life is. After the bullet is fired there are no do overs.
3
You didn't join the march because you lack empathy. It's ok, at seventeen I also lacked empathy. However, you may learn a lesson yet as you age and acquire more experience, knowledge and yes, empathy.
1
I'm not really sure why the NYtimes chose to publish this. It's largely opinion based with little data to back it up - re: "but firearms aren't the problem - people are". It's great to see differing opinions, but I don't feel that this article is based on any information other than the author's personal opinion.
1
All the kids have to know about guns is they are killing their classmates.
Automatics have been outlawed since 1924. Standard magazines designed and comes with a gun are not extended - that is just more False Narrative duping the uninformed general public. 10 day waiting periods for background checks have been normal for over 40 years. What are you people hearing. Amazing
Many commenters here refer to the writer as "young man" etc. Interestingly I find nothing in the article to justify that other than the stock photo, which is obviously not a picture of the writer. All we know for sure is that the writer is a junior in a high school.
You can have all the civilian guns you want & can afford. The military weapons are for the military. If you want to fire one, join the Army.
3
The AR-15 is a civilian firearm.
Well you should have joined your school walk out Dakota. Because kids your age are being slaughtered at school and that has nothing to do with deer hunting. It has to do with the NRA and availability of asssault weapons of war.
2
Here's all your classmates should have to know about guns: That they can go to school and other public places and not worry about having their brains blown out by some ne-er-do-well with a high-powered weapon he shouldn't have had.
1
Dakota... pick up a book rather than a gun and see which gets you further in life...
4
Mr. Hanchett has stated that guns are not the problem, people are.
Yet as people have shown that they are not mature enough to handle firearms properly and respectfully, the problem has indeed become GUNS and not PEOPLE. The U.K. and Australia, to name 2 countries, have shown my argument to be true.
The confusion rests in what the second amendment actually says and the NRA's bastardization of it implying that gun control is an attack on our constitution rights. In essence, the NRA is supported by large corporations who want to sell GUNS! It's always the money...isn't it?
1
Gun control is like trying to solve drunk driving by taking cars away from sober people.
4
You don't have any gun rights that are not well regulated. No person has the right to privately bare arms. Its in the constitution. Sorry bud.
Dear Dakota,
If you think guns are "cool" perhaps you need to reflect how you are arriving at that thought. And if shooting animals is a sport, why can't the animals shoot back? Give yourself a few more years and see if anything changes. Good luck and good fortune to you.
1
Firearms are the problem, Son. They really are.
Note to Dick Cheney and GW Bush: The WMDs were here all the time. And, they're still here.
2
Why does anyone need an AR-15 to hunt deer?
2
Proof that we are getting nowhere: "guns don't kill, people do...." NRA cliche from the seventies parroted by 17 year olds. I for one am tired of gun fanatics, teenagers no less, telling me I don't understand this or that about guns. It's condescending and offensive. Here's what I know. If someone walks into a room with a gun who is not a police officer most sane people would leave that room PDQ from the nearest exit. And the boy wonders why other kids are afraid of him.
The premise of this "opinion" by a gun touting teenager is that he disagrees with his classmates in protesting gun violence. Either he did not understand what they were walking out for, or he thinks gun violence should be left unchecked "because some people grew up with guns and learned how to use them". That does it for me to reject his opinion as justification for a civilian teenager walking into a shop and buying an AR-15 with no questions asked, then taking a Uber to his school and massacring his classmates and teachers. Was this teenager a hunter? No. Didn't he know how to handle guns? On the contrary - he was a member of the JROTC, he knew exactly how to handle an AR-15, he knew what it does and there was nothing to stop him from doing it. Shame on NYT for promoting this kind of "opinion" and perpetuating the gun violence culture in the US.
The protest was about limiting weapons that aren’t ‘tools’ for farming/hunting, they are tools for WAR. This entire argument is a straw man and reframes the argument on the NRA’s terms.
It is one thing to seek opposing opinions. I respect that this is a young person and they do write well. But For the Love of God NYT PLEASE stop with heartland opinion pieces that do not honestly advance the discourse.
1
I would have given this young person's response some consideration if he hadn't reiterated the same facts-free talking points gun enthusiasts love.
Don't let the packaging fool you.
Of course people are the problem so why allow them to be armed with the tools of war? Mass killing?
1
This sounds like someone else’s ideas being parroted back, not your own. As a former marine and life long big game hunting guide, I’ve learned that no one, myself included, is consistently trustworthy when their finger is on the trigger. Change our culture, and guns will take care of themselves. I know, easier said than done.
2
Stop already. You Americans simply can't quit believing that you're living in some Clint Eastwood fantasy. With your guns, you're all heroes, or saviors or liberators or protectors, pioneers, "free." And yet, you hold each other hostage to the fetish of owning high-powered, multiple shooting weapons (and stop with the condescending talk that people don't know the difference).
If a lot of you macho-types really want to understand what hunting and sport is all about, you should come to Italy, a country with plenty of guns (and no mass shootings). Here, when you go hunting big, dangerous critters like wild boar, you are only legally allowed 3 bullets in the chamber. Now that's sporting. Are you "men/women" enough for that?
1
How many times have we heard this lame argument? "firearms aren’t the problem — people are" (or its close cousin, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"). By this logic, auto accidents don't injure, maim and kill people-- people injure, maim and kill people. Automobiles aren't to blame.
Auto registration, auto insurance, seat beats, passenger air-bags, traffic lights, stop signs, auto inspection stickers and all the other "regulations" on automobile ownership and use still don't entirely prevent injuries and death, but they have a serious impact on minimizing those numbers.
The hardware and its use must be regulated (no state will permit a Sherman tank-- a weapon of war-- as a licensed vehicle). Of course guns can be used safely, but their sale and distribution must be far more carefully regulated. Not withstanding Mr. Hanchett's otherwise logical case for respectful discussion, he entirely misses the point. In his boast that he has used an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he neglects to point out that this is really a weapon of war. Such weapons should be restricted to our armed forces and law enforcement authorities in the same way a tank should be so restricted.
There must be a line drawn. Mr. Hanchett seems to think it involves classes sensitizing us to the niceties of gun ownship and and gun culture. This sounds too much to me like the palybook of the NRA and all of us know they oppose even the most basic regulation of firearms. Get real.
The AR-15 semiautomatic, by definition, is not a defensive weapon . The 'A' stands for "Assault". You know who else besides you thinks it's cool? The weapons manufacturers who want to sell them. While I have never hunted, I don't have any problem with fair hunting for food. I hope you and your family are reading the comments. Do you all really think it is sport or fair to go after an animal (I assume you are not hunting large games which is another conversation) with an AR-15? You butcher humanely but you kill indiscriminately with unfair advantage? Why don't you just throw a grenade into the woods and kill whatever is in it's way? But this is not hunting. If you're only using the AR-15 for target, then sad, sad, sad that this is what you find entertaining. You defending the use of an AR-15 for fun while we are slaughtered with a guns designed for war is not appropriate. Maybe you need to listen to some of the people that you say don't understand you.
2
Good for you and well said! Remember to exercise your right to vote and protect our second amendment!
4
Well Dakota,
Since you know so much about guns, then you also know that guns are out of control and this country needs, must have, stronger common sense gun laws.
And that those laws would not in any way effect your ability to enjoy your "hobby"
1
I think you are wrong, Dakota. That's as respectful as I can get. I think you are wrong.
Yes, but how would YOU feel if someone murdered some of your classmates with an AR-15, a weapon intended to kill a lot of people very fast? If YOU had to hide under your desk in mass shooter drills? If YOU knew with dead certainty (pun intended) that you were never safe anywhere—in school, church, malls, movie theaters, or the street—because someone might mow you down with a weapon of war?
The students who will march this Saturday in Washington—and their supporters across the country—are in no mood to tolerate semi-automatic weapons, except in the hands of on-duty U.S. military. These students are the political wave of the future, and I would get on their side, if I were you, especially if you like guns. Because I think they are in no mood to tolerate ANY guns right now, and the longer they have to wait on getting rid of seim-automatic weapons, the less tolerant they will become.
1
"I butcher animals humanely". That sounds like an oxymoron. What living creature with an advanced nervous system would want to be butchered?
"If you buy a gun from a federally licensed seller, you have to do the federal background check, which can take more than an hour with all the paperwork. The gun seller should use common sense during that time to determine whether the buyer is in the right state of mind and will use a firearm only in legal ways."
Gee! A whole hour's worth of paperwork before the guy selling AR-15s to teenagers at a handsome markup can determine whether the guy with the money will always and forever use the gun safely. And if he's not federally-licensed, but some guy with swastika tats at a gun show?
Son, you are sincere and perhaps you wrote this without substantial editing by adults, but I fear you miss the point. Your classmates' hitting the bricks had nothing to do with your right to plink tin cans behind the barn and shoot the rats in the corncrib. It was about death, murder, unregulated madness.
Shouldn't buying and using a gun be subject to regulation as stringent as that applying to owning and using a pick-up or a spray-rig?
Do you use Paraquat on the crabgrass in the garden, flamethrowers to prune the berry patch, civil war rifles to keep the neighbor's kids from taking shortcuts across the cornfield? I live on a farm too, but can't thinkbof any task that would require an assault rifle.
1
Go ride a bike or a skateboard, kid. You don't need a gun to enjoy the outdoors and you don't need a gun to be man.
3
Guns are not 'cool'. They are ridiculous. And boring. AR15-type semi-automatic weapons have no utility as hunting tools. They are hobby toys - owned and operated by immature people with inadequacy syndromes. I too was brought up with guns, and I've been to the range enough times to know better. I've tried every type of handgun and long gun. IMHO it's all a gigantic bore: snap in the magazine, flip the safety, point the stupid thing, squeeze the trigger. Repeat again, and again, and again. A lot of noise. A lot of toxic gunpowder fumes. A bunch of shredded target papers. A chimpanzee could be trained to do this. It's a ridiculous hobby that entrains tremendous human tragedy. The AR15-toting NRA fanatics, if they had any sense of common humanity, would willingly give up their inane hobby if it might save a single life.
6
“Gun owning teenage”
Am I the only one who has a problem with that statement?
3
You know what else is a tool? Rockets, tanks, and thermo-nuclear weapons. These are also armaments. Unless your argument is everyone should have these you have no argument and you do not have any use for a semi-automatic rifle unless you are planning to murder a large group of people.
The kids who protested absolutely understand what guns do: they kill. Semi-automatic weapons are killing them and they are sick of their friends dying.
6
and also, you would have gained credibility with your peers if you'd walked out with them. You surely wanted to honor the lives of the 17 more than you wanted to uphold the honor of guns, didnt you? if not, you're not as reasonable as you sound.
5
Since you are "hunting" game on your farm, I hope you have a really, really big farm. Are you aware that a bullet can travel a mile? When you are shooting for target practice and hunting on your farm, are you endangering your neighbors? Every year, people are injured and killed by bullets falling from weapons shot in the air at Fourth of July. Whatever goes up must come down - somewhere...
1
Nukes are "cool", too. They make great colors and incredible mushroom clouds, amazing sounds and man, do they make you feel powerful and safe. And the Constitution doesn't even make them illegal, so thwy shouldn't be regulated. They can even be "tools" if your work requires a lot of dead animals --or enemies -- and permanently uninabitable lands.
How many deaths and injuries would it take for you to say it is not right for them to be removed from access by normal teens, adults or even the mentally ill? 2? 12? 225? 2,000,000?
The amount you find acceptable is our problem. Compute the amount of fun should you be allowed against the amount of evil results you will pay for it.
If you can.
2
Another recitation of page one of the NRA bible. Most of us who don't have any affinity for guns absolutely don't care if others shoot to hunt, target practice or just like guns and collect them. Can you hear me? We don't care. We do care when people have an ability to mangle innocents on a mass scale. What reasonable dialog is needed to make you reject semi-automatics?
4
If only the kids/human beings who have died and will continue to die in mass shootings could write op-eds too.
Maybe the NYT ought to consider writing full obituaries for each person who dies at the hand of mass shooters from now on. Let' their stories be heard as well.
8
What is the reason to have an AR-15 for this young man? Why does anyone need one? And the whole "they're gonna take away my hunting rifle" is just a canard. Spouting the same uninformed statements that grandpa did. Sigh.
6
Heller v. DC. The opinion supports limits on assault weapons.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html
Government over-reach wasn't the reason for the Second Amendment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-of-publ...
1
How would people react if he was toting a AK47 in the picture.
1
There is no reason that semi-automatic weapons sgould be publically available and nothing written here addressses/changes that fact.
4
Mississippi boy, 9, shoots sister, 13, over video game controller
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/03/19/boy-shoots-sister-...
A 13-year-old girl has died after she was shot Saturday by her 9-year-old brother, local media reported.
Monroe County Sheriff Cecil Cantrell said the girl would not give up a video game controller when her brother wanted it.
Cantrell said she was shot in the back of the head, and that the bullet went through her brain.
Authorities don't yet know how the child had access to the weapon they say he used to shoot his sister. It's also unclear how much knowledge the boy had of the dangers of guns.
"He’s just 9. I assume he’s seen this on video games or TV," Cantrell said. "I don't know if he knew exactly what this would do. I can’t answer that. I do know it’s a tragedy."
The investigation will not be rushed, the sheriff said, and the identities of family members are not being released.
"This is all new ground for us, we've never dealt with a kid shooting a kid at age 9," Cantrell said. "We don't know yet what kind of charges or if charges will be pressed. We want to make sure we’re doing everything correctly.
The sheriff asked for the public's thoughts and prayers for the child and the family.
---
Thoughts and prayers.....thoughts and prayers....thoughts and prayers.........AND zero gun control.
Nice GOPeople.
5
The parents should be under custody for child endangerment.
Why would people who don't have guns want to take a class in gun safety? Sex education, on the other hand, pertains to almost everyone, so I fail to see the effectiveness of the analogy here. Also, if people were really the problem (rather than guns), then raising the age for gun ownership would clearly fit that perspective.
6
"Why would people who don't have guns want to take a class in gun safety? "
To learn something. Maybe to meet some of their neighbors and form a better community ?
Dakota Hanchett is a junior at Hanover High School. He makes some very interesting points about a rapidly disappearing rural culture. His perspective is poignant, and I agree with much of what he says and admire his way of life.
Still, I wonder -- Hanover? Home to Dartmouth? Maybe this kid isn't as charmingly exotic as he lets on.
3
This reads like a child wrote it. Well there’s no shame in being young and having opinions but the facts are pretty basic. There are about 300million guns in a nation of 350 million, Americans think the right to own one is explicit in the constitution, and mass killings are A THING. To perpetrate, to watch on tv, to experience over and over year after year. Until we are so ashamed of our national conduct that we greatly alter access to guns, our reality will remain as it is.
3
MORE GUNS = MORE GUN DEATHS.
One doesn't need to understand hunting, target shooting or gun safety to understand this equation.
4
But the FBI reports more guns and less gun deaths. What ?
The president said that “extreme vetting” was justified to keep dangerous immigrants out of the country. Why is it so unreasonable to consider extreme vetting of those who would buy weapons of war?
7
I recently changed homeowners insurance companies, and during the conversation with the underwriter I was asked whether I had a dog and whether I had a trampoline. I was not asked if I had a gun. How many people were accidentally killed by their dog?
7
Great article !
As a veteran, a hunter, and the father of 3 terrific grown children, I understand your message.
We’ve had anywhere from 10 to 20 handguns, shotguns and rifles in our house for the last 40 years. My wife and I taught our kids respect for others and firearm safety, and always kept our firearms in a gun safe.
America is becoming a land of “victims” where nobody is responsible for their actions, and the masses look to blame anyone but the individual.
Don’t worry, thankfully in the vast reaches of America between the liberal coasts, most Americans share your beliefs. We don’t believe banning gasoline is necessary to stop arsonists.
Here’s a plan - instead of worrying about the tool an isolated, lonely, and desperate child uses to scream for attention - let’s stop making war on our young men, and instead of ostracizing them and making them feel hopeless and helpless, create a society that values and encourages our boys.
5
Sorry, but this piece misses the mark by a mile. It fails to address why the NRA feels there's a need for assault weapons. Most kids have no need to learn gun safety since they will never own one. Gun safety, along with the proper use and storage of guns, is not what's at issue. Too easy access to guns designed for the primary purpose of killing as many people as quickly as possible is what young people are protesting.
5
Do your part to educate your peers . I am also a gun owner and Hunter, but I see no need on earth for a civilian to own an AR 15. I have spent a lot of time shooting one, and though it is a fun rifle for target shooting, it has no place in a Deer-stand or for that matter leaning against a nightstand in someone’s home. It is a battlefield weapon.
6
It seems rural residents love their guns, likely because they do use them as tools and I haven’t heard about any fun-related massacres in rural areas. So they get all the benefits without any of the detriments, like having their friends and loved ones killed by a crazy person. I think the answer could be to pass a gun control law that prohibits any semi-automatic weapons in more densely populated areas; perhaps this may have stopped the massacre(s) in Florida. In sparsely populated areas, there are few negatives to owning guns. In cities and suburbs, those negatives go up drastically, and the government has to prevent its own people from putting innocent lives at risk.
crazy people live in cities, perhaps because that is where their doctors are. makes sense. just don't make rules for city folk and force them onto the country folk please.
Interesting, gun people want to spend money for additional classes at schools, for more security at schools, for teachers to have the added responsibility of carrying a gun. They want police and other law enforcement to come under constant assault from gun owners who by any standard should not carry a gun. They want the "right" to have assault rifles, armor piercing bullets and all types of weapons that cause mayhem, but they don't want any of the responsibility that goes with it. Instead, society has to bear all the costs of their oversized egos and need to display power at the expense of our right to safety and, often, life.
3
Apparently, you don't know that these guns are used to kill people, not big game.
2
"I think people who use guns in mass shootings are using those guns to seek help" Don't you think that if a hunting rifle was the only helping tool around the number of victims would be a lot smaller? You seem to be a responsible gun owner, kudos! The protesters are not targeting people like you.
2
The author is remarkably unaware about WHY the protests are happening. The statement that "people are the problem" is a regurgitation of the common "Guns don't kill people" tripe from the NRA. The protests are there to ensure proper gun laws are enacted and enforced, at the federal level. Gun control works. We know that people are the problem. The laws are for people.
4
The assertion that gun education should be equivalent to sex education in schools is ridiculous. One is a stupid choice that doesn’t need to be made, the other is fundamental to human life. I appreciate that this person seems to know what they’re talking about and is reasonably humane but at the end of the day, those points don’t matter because this person is simply unwilling to consider that gun culture itself might be a problem.
2
Mr. Hanchett, you are a student and I was once a teacher. You express yourself well and perhaps someday you ought to be a teacher or run for Congress. I will you good luck, the grace and blessings of God and all the richness of life.
Even so, you are not going to respect me if as a teacher I am too deferential or cowardly to express my own view, fully and without reservation. My opinion is simple: an AR-15, as combat veterans have told you here, is designed to do nothing but kill with horrible power and force. A magnum load on one of these weapons can blast an internal organ to pieces, instantaneously, as Radiologists in Florida discovered after the recent school murders there. Your right to own one of the those weapons absolutely guarantees that some people who shouldn't have them are going to get their hands on those weapons and commit exactly the horrible mass shootings we have seen. In a civilized society people shouldn't have rights that lead to such consequences. Personal rights are not absolute. They are imbedded in a social network that protects the rights of others. As you grow older I am confident you will realize this more fully as I am sure you already do in other areas of life. Again, good luck and the grace of God to you.
5
“I feel horrible about the kids who were killed or hurt, but firearms aren’t the problem — people are.”
Parroting NRA propaganda before the child is old enough to vote.
4
The difference today, as opposed to 40-50 years ago is the lunacy of people like Wayne LaPierre and the NRA. Some day you may have children. If they are ever threatened with, injured by or killed by an assault weapon I believe your opinion of the AR-15 might change. Maybe not.
If you were a grieving parent and a politician who accepted money from the NRA told you it was too soon to discuss gun control. I believe your opinion of the AR-15 might change. Maybe not.
You are young. I am 65 years old and enjoyed raising animals for slaughter with my daughters in 4H.
When I think of the AR-15 and gun control I will think of my daughters and young men like you.
I will also think of the NRA and the politicians who accepted money from them who thought it was too soon to discuss gun control.
3
There is absolutely no reason for civilians to have assault rifles, which are weapons of war meant for soldiers. They are for killing people. They are not toys. They are not hunting rifles. They are not meant for the defense of one’s home. In short, they are not meant for fun. They are vicious.
3
Good luck to you Dakota, you sound like a reasonable kid who will grow up to be a fine citizen, neighbor and family man. You will find friends who share your interests and some of them will be friends and hunting partners for life. I was a kid like you and now I'm an old man who hunts, fishes and has a magnificent garden.
This is not a good moment to take a position in favor of safe firearms use. The gun shop nazis have pretty much dominated the conversation on the "pro" side and have become essentially a major political force driving the Republican Party to the right. My sense is that ordinary people have reached the point where they feel enough is enough, SOMETHING has to be done, but what that something is is not exactly clear in their minds.
Someone has to take the middle ground, stay calm, listen to everyone and help frame the discussion. Again, good luck to you.
2
The Second Amendment must go.
4
Dakota makes a reasoned and thoughtful case for gun ownership. What he has not expressed and is not aware of is the fact that there are thousands if not millions of people in America with guns who have mental illness, poor judgement, or just bad bad values. They are dangerous to us all.
AR-15 ownership is an invitation to whackos and sickos to kill enormous numbers of people all at once. That and other weapons of mass destruction should be illegal in a sensible society.
Gun training is no substitute for intelligent prohibition - when the trainee is evil minded or out to kill.
Should Dakota have access to a single shot rifle? Sure.
Does he need anything more? No.
2
I don't begrudge anyone hunting if they eat their kill. However, there is *no reason* any human needs to or should ever shoot an AR-15.
3
If you want an AR-15, join the military and find out what it was really made for.
4
As a rifle owner and a former member of the NRA, I find guns both fun and useful. I'm not a hunter, but I have many friends who hunt. I live in a rural area and rifles are a tool. A good gun is a good tool.
I parted ways with the NRA when they started pushing guns as protection. They fill peoples' minds with phantasms--non-white thugs and foreign terrorists, mostly--and tell them a gun will make them feel powerful and safe. In an era when Republican lawmakers seem dead-set on making everyone feel scared and weak, the bigger the gun, the more powerful the weakling.
No one needs a semi-automatic rifle or pistol (just like nobody needs a Porsche that can go 180mph) unless they need to stop actual criminals or terrorists (i.e. the Police or the Army). They can be fun, yes, but they can kill so many people in such a short time that they need to be banned.
Dakota repeats the NRA's mantra, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Actually, it should end "people with guns kill people."
Respect is necessary. Stupidity and fear, not so much.
40
"unless they need to stop actual criminals" we all have that responsibility, not just the police.
1
No, we don't. That's called vigilantism. No functioning society would ever allow any random citizen to act as judge, jury and executioner.
1
"criminals with guns kill people"
If this writer's reasoning holds, non-drinkers have no business demanding tougher drunken-driving laws because, after all, they know nothing about it.
16
Wow, the NRA has succeeded in ensuring another generation of mindless gun violence will happen.
13
Good on you for speaking your mind and getting the NYT to give you the soapbox to do it and reach so many readers; however, like other commentators I take issue with your adjective "cool" describe guns -- though I don't doubt for a minute you mean it -- and with the suggestion that you consider filling out paperwork for an hour in order to buy a gun as somehow exaggeratedly burdensome. I encourage you to read the article "What it takes to buy a gun in 15 countries" also published by this newspaper. It might lead you out of the insular attitude you seem to have about the alleged healthy gun-owning culture you claim exists in Vermont. As a parent of two teenagers, I sleep easier knowing that ownership of handguns, rifles, and assault weapons is a strictly regulated privilege in France and not a right.
17
"guns are cool" What does that mean?. Basically he boils it down to the old NRA shibboleth of "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well cars don't kill people, people driving cars kill people. Yet we regulate them. Without always saying it, so many gun advocates seem to assume that gun control means no guns. No more than car "control" means we are all walking.
9
this is (at least) the second time this week the NYT has published an opinion piece by a self identified defender of gun rights explaining all the useful things guns can do.
newsflash to the editors of the NYT: opponents of unlimited access to guns know that guns are tools, and can serve socially useful ends.
what your (perhaps unintentionally) patronizing contributors fail to address is why mowing down other humans might be a socially useful end that would justify allowing the general public access to a tool like an AR-15 designed to do just that.
or, are we perhaps to infer that one of the useful things that hunters and farmers do with their "useful tools" (aka "guns") is kill masses of their neighbors every once in a while, and that's just part of the rhythm of "rural" life?
if the NYT editorial board wants to contribute meaningfully to the debate about sensible gun control, please spare us lengthy explanations of things that are not in dispute.
9
Hey Dakota- I will be at the march with my son who owns a shotgun and a rifle. Come to the march and join us. There is a wide spectrum of views represented and yours is important. If you don't have anyone to march w we can try to meet up so you are not alone. Here is a link to a fundraiser for the march that helps explain how guns/violence/gun culture very different from your life impacts kids. https://twitter.com/feminit4equipar/status/974867878297120768
1
How about this:
Ban the sale of automatic weapons of war to civilians.
Give a one-year amnesty period for those who own them to turn them in, preferably in exchange for a cash credit of some sort, and other "swag" to sweeten the deal.
If, after that year, someone is caught with an AR-15, it would be an automatic 20 year jail sentence, with no possibility of parole.
Simple.
11
So you just want to make anyone who keeps their lawfully owned AR-15 into a criminal? That is not a solution.
Don't see any hearing protection in this photo. Not too smart!
1
The shooter in the stock photo isn’t wearing ear protection because the shooter is using a break-barrel air rifle, not a firearm. (Not that the NY Times editors would know the difference, which is why they used the photo.)
I love the NY Times. But it appears to me that the editorial board itself is afraid to stand up to the NRA. It's not about fair minded ideas. It's about teens getting slaughtered in their classrooms. Maybe someone, somewhere can stand up to the moral imperatives necessary to bring about change.
3
It's about defenseless teens getting slaughtered in their classrooms.
It will be interesting to hear what this person and any gun-totiing member of the NRA has to say when it is one of his or her children or family member that is shot with an AK-47, or an AR-15, Uzzi's, or other types of assult rifles. It would be very interesting indeed. Why you need this type of weaponry to shoot deer I will never know. You're trying to justify your ownership and usage. I don;t like guns but I would not stop your right to hunt, fish or play the fiddle, but when does the type of ownership stop? Will you also need pipe bombs and nerve gas to kill feral dogs and cats?
3
When the student writing this article equated sex ed classes with "firearm education" he seems to be forgetting that not everyone is born with a gun. He also makes a "family culture" that includes owning guns sound as if it is wonderful and normal. It's not. He is mouthing the same old NRA nonsense about "guns don't kill people...people kill people".
5
Perhaps some day this young person will see that it is a lie to believe that you can "butcher animals humanely". The animals he has hunted and butchered would strongly disagree with this piece of propaganda. Hats off to his classmates who are outraged about the proliferation of guns in America and doing something about it.
5
I am not afraid of guns, son. I am afraid of evil, angry or mentally ill people with guns. I would much rather try and outrun someone with a knife or bat then an AR.
8
This kid doesn't speak for his dead classmates, who probably would have preferred that an AR-15 not be available.
But that's just a wild guess.
7
From someone who does not understand guns.
More kids are killed by drug overdoses than by guns. Perhaps it's time to march against those who illegally supply opioids.
1
First of all, your entire response is the "but children are starving in Africa" argument that brings up a completely irrelevant issue to try to dismiss the topic at hand. Secondly, even on the topic of drugs you're misinformed because most of the opioids people are hooked on are all brought here legally through the pharmaceutical industry. Many heroin addicts were once legally prescribed patients that simply couldn't get more pills to satisfy their newly formed addiction.
3
Perhaps it is time to decriminalize opioid addiction, and to tax big pharma to generate revenue to provide treatment to those suffering from the illness of addiction.
Why oh why does the times print these kind of think pieces? The utility of gun legislation would be symbolic. Intent is as powerful as results (not surprisingly our legal system pairs the two). Any yo-yo can get a gun anywhere and only unreasonable conspiracy theorists believes guns will be eradicated. To waste copy about why someone would or would not want to use a gun is not the discussion that is elemental. Sending a message about what kind of society promotes the highest level of physical and mental health is. Please stop enabling gun superstition. They are not magical talismans of identity, they are tools used to kill and protecting people against them is the only argument worth print.
4
“Even if people on the other side don’t agree, they need to be respectful, listen, be honest and not get upset with the other person.”
Like the NRA does, right?
7
I cannot respect anyone who thinks he has a right to own an AR-15. Its sole purpose should be for war.
12
What if it was mechanically impossible to load it with more than 6 rounds? Would that make an AR-style rifle less threatening for you?
Dakota, what if it were legal for citizens to own hand grenades, and you were a member of community and a family that used hand grenades to peacefully slaughter livestock, and fish in a pond. How would you feel if mentally unbalanced or evil people started tossing hand grenades into classrooms and movie theaters and killing dozens of people at a time? Maybe that it was time to reconsider the policy of allowing anybody to buy hand grenades?
4
"...but firearms aren’t the problem — people are."
The NRA has this child right where they want him.
6
I think the students get it...guns kill, semi-automatic guns kill a lot...you don't need to be a gun owner to understand that.
6
Dakota…
Your classmates are not operating out of ignorance. It is important to realize this.
Your love of shooting and hunting is of no concern to them. They don’t care that you own a hunting rifle, or a handgun. This is as irrelevant to them as (individually) fertilizer and fuel and igniters are to a citizen of Oklahoma City. But that citizen insists no one will ever have access to these three things ever again. As a society we ‘told’ people it didn’t matter what they may ‘want’ – for the greater good of society this is banned.
I am a college prof. I teach the history of US Constitutional Law. As with all ‘rights’ the 2nd Amendment, even read in the warped and tortured manner given it by the Justice Scalia – is not and cannot be an ‘open-ended’ ‘right’. There are no open-ended rights. What would happen if there were?!
You own an AR-15. I live across the street from you. I see that AR-15. I want an RPG. I have ‘right’! You, in turn, want a truck mounted machine gun. Back and forth we go... until I install a 105mm Howitzer right next to my BBQ patio out back.
Where does the insanity of endless individual rights end? Plato, 2500 years ago, in LAWS, warned of such a devolution in societies. It was as if were writing with America in mind.
You seem to be a thoughtful young man. I believe, sincerely, that you and your generation can do what mine has failed to do: discuss this issue rationally – free of ideologies – to discover the truth of these matters.
All the best sir.
10
Dakota, sometimes one right must overrule another. For instance, my right to live safely in the U.S., whether I'm a student attending school, an adult going grocery shopping, etc, I have some right to reasonably expect I can go to these public places safely, do you agree?
Your "right" to own a military assault rifle, one that you admit has no real purpose for you but coolness, which I understand but find a tad selfish on your part, your need to have that right guaranteed detracts from my right to appear in pubic, unarmed and unafraid, by the way, without concerns about being shot down by someone who also thought military assault rifles were cool and that they might go shoot a bunch of people with them, which, if we are truthful, is the only reason they were created. Do you need a military assault rifle? Are you going to kill a bunch of people? Are you afraid to appear in public without one because there might be another crazy person who also feels afraid and that he needs to own one? Does this get my point across, Dakota? I don't want your hunting rifles or handguns. I don't think you have the right to own a weapon of mass destruction while I go around unarmed. Because I'm not afraid. You are. Can we at least admit, gun owners are the ones who are scared, Dakot?
2
I'm interested in taking up hunting. Wild pigs are decimating indigenous fauna all over the US. Culling them is good for the environment because it gives other animals and plants a chance to flourish. Plus, wild boar is pretty tasty. I'm thinking a Sako or Tikka. They're beautiful guns. I don't need an assault rifle to go hunting. No civilian do. I hope see that. Because the NRA surely doesn't. Look at all your classmates who walked. They will be the future voters and elected officials. And they outnumber you already. In your generation, they will vote to repeal the Second unless a sensible compromise is reached. And it looks like it won't be. So, yes, they will be prying the guns from Charles's and Wayne's cold, dead hands someday. It will be the NRA who will ruin it for guys like you and me to where we won't even be able to go hunting anymore. And that's why you should've walked with your fellow classmates. You really should've.
6
What’s to know? Mass shooting after mass has occurred and our Federal Government has done exactly zero. Holding a moment of silence and praying in the House of Representatives and the Senate and lowering the American flag equals zero. Nothing done.
Since the mind set of America is that it is necessary under our constitution to allow any random idiot to possess firearms so that they can do what weapons are meant to do. Murder people. We who are the American people just have to get over the fact that nothing will ever change. These mass shootings will always be a part of our society and all one can do is hope that you and your loved ones are not present when the next male monster shoots up a school, post office, or concert.
In the meantime I want our government to pay the victims and victims families blood money. Ten million per victim would be a good number. The idea here is to make getting randomly shot (and perhaps killed) a more desirable thing. And if the government does not wish to continue making payments to victims and victims families they could get to work for is and legislate a fix to this problem.
This really is only fair because the weapons manufacturer have been shielded from all liability since 2003.
1
Dakota, if you feel sad that the kids in Parkland were shot with an AR-15, you know that the walkout was to respect their memory, and you understand that the weapon on the table is the AR-15, then why can't you join the walk-out? No one is asking you to stop hunting. No one is asking you to change your way of life. I think maybe your classmates understand the issues better than you do. Why do you need an AR-15?
4
Rather than protest guns, protest the students that shoot other students.
2
Yeah that'll solve the problem. Sign me up, just let me know when and where you are holding the protest.
Why is it that "people are a problem" mostly in the U.S? Are gun advocates saying we have some higher proportion or crazy violent people or criminals in our society than almost any other country on earth?
No. There are criminals and psychopaths in every place-only in the U.S are they able to inflict this level of damage due to the omnipresence of guns
7
The specious "guns don't kill people, people do" trope is getting pretty tired. Nikolas Cruz probably wouldn't have killed anyone if he had to do it with a bat or a knife or his fists, nor would he have even walked onto the campus if those were his only options. But the siren song of the fearsome and easily accessible (ABSURD!!!) AR-15 called, and enabled Cruz to feel powerfully advantaged and capable of "winning" his dark fantasy. You won't see many respectable hunters out in the woods in a deer stand holding an AR-15. This is not a hunting weapon, except where the game is human beings.
4
I don't own guns and I regularly do not shoot firearms. People who own guns seem to not know how it is to not own guns. I have no ability to kill other people easily either one by one or in rapid succession. People around me have zero chance of getting killed by a gun fired by me on purpose or by mistake.
I think the people who are afraid of not having guns should talk to the people who are familiar with not owning them, and both should keep an open mind.
Just because someone has a gun does not make them an expert on the subject of how guns were not responsible for killing dozens of kids in dozens of schools over the past decades. And yep owning assault rifles is not debatable. Enough kids have died already. I want all American kids to pursue life , liberty and happiness without fear of some idiot assault rifle owners who might lose his mental imbalance in the future or just decide to kill.
6
Anyone who hunts is off my list as far as moral arguments go. I'm so tired of all the killing, all the animals included.
3
Hurrah for you, my dear. Now look at provable facts. For a few decades people have brought guns to schools and shot people dead. Many of us, including those who are not in school as students, teacher, administrators, or other staff are appalled that people are taking weapons to school and firing them and using other people as targets.
I'm sure that you who are knowledgeable about guns could explain what you know. The others can explain to you those are precisely the reasons they shouldn't be taken to school or work or concerts or any other public event and fired off.
This is what your fellow students are protesting not gun ownership, just stupid and dangerous behavior by some gun owners, even if they don't mean to harm anyone.
1
Misses the point. Not only do people not need military grade weapons to hunt but they are irrelevant to sporting tradition and I have been shooting a lot longer than the author. Slugs for deer, shotguns for fowl, heavy high powered 30.06 bolt action where legal for large animals.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/remington-history/remington-timeline-1962-rem...
1
No, I will never feel safe knowing that teenagers who think guns are cool can walk around with a concealed weapon. Or adults for that matter. That said, I am fine with hunting rifles!
2
When teenagers write NYT op-eds, I often wonder if somebody helped them. I wonder this regardless of their views. In this case, I wonder if somebody connected to the NRA had a hand.
Also, it's incredibly hard to get an op-ed piece published in the NYT unless you have some kind of connection (or some degree of fame or expertise). Here again, I'd like to know if this op-ed just came in over the transom or if somebody worked to get it in.
I'm not casting aspersions. I just wonder.
6
If gun owners want to be treated with respect, then they must stop letting the NRA speak for them.
4
True, that.
My family's culture is one of life and we don't like mad, crazy people being able to buy them and kill us. The woods in Vermont are not an elementary school in Connecticut. You are to be applauded for your courage in writing this. But, don't go right to how the rest of us don't understand guns. I don't understand bombs, either. I don't want to.
3
Hey Dakota,
Go ahead, hunt. Kill some animals. Knock yourself out. Just help us get rid of semi-automatic weapons, ridiculously large magazines, institute background checks and gun safety regulations like they have IN EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. That’s all I need to know about guns. Otherwise, count me among THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS who would just as soon get rid of all guns. Guns are not essential to America. Our understanding of why it is you want to shoot guns is not necessary. Good Day Sir.
5
You do not need to know much about RPGs to know that they should not be in the hands of private citizens either.
20
Dokota, when you used the word "cool" to describe your interest in guns, you proved what many Americans believe: that owning guns is a "hobby." I feel that it is fine to hunt etc. However, an AR 15 assault rifle is too dangerous to be in our communities just because it is someone's hobby. I suggest you take up tennis or checkers.
32
Dakota,
You are very lucky to have parents who have taught you their passion and respect for something valuable. Some kids are lucky that way. Married to an Italian, living in Germany (US Military) for many years, our kids were raised in a tri-lingual home. You were raised in a farming, hunting, gun-using home.
Both our kids and you and your siblings will go forth into adulthood more educated, more grounded, more enlightened and more mature than most kids.
Would you agree, or think it probable, that most people who own guns have NOT had your lengthy, top-quality experience with them?
Your parents and our US Military have voluntarily undertaken to use weapons with the highest level of professionalism. Your folks have taught you this, too. Your gun skills and mental approach are ideal. You will be a great US citizen and neighbor, Dakota.
But how do we handle the unknown percentage of gun users who do NOT meet the level of professional conduct and training that your family has chosen to adopt?
If I saw you hunt, kill and skin an animal, I would be impressed. How do we protect ourselves from those whose gun skills are not impressive?
I bet your folks have drilled into you to NEVER use a gun if you have been drinking. How do we protect ourselves from those who have no problem wielding a loaded weapon after having had some alcohol?
Thank you for your sincere, well-reasoned article, Dakota. May God continue to bless you and your family.
Jake Van Sant
Why do you have an AR-15? What is it i useful for beside killing a lot of people (or maybe animals, in your case) quickly? Nothing. It is not a real hunting rifle (ie, used by a skilled hunter). Do you just shoot at targets? If so, then it is just a toy. A very dangerous toy that should not be sold as such.
26
Guns are a tool. While they can be used for arguably humane reasons, their ready availability makes it all too easy to kill humans in great numbers.
9
You stated that you believe in gun control and background checks. You really have a great deal in common with your fellow students. That was what the walkout was really about. Perhaps you could have joined them.
20
Dakota, eveyone needs education about their body and health. Not eveyone needs edu about gun. You need to leave your state and see what is going on in life besides hunting.
12
Republicans don't seem to understand the uterus either, and yet they still demand an end to women's right to choose.
19
Granted that I haven't read all 1349 comments to this Op-Ed, contributed by a teenage boy. I have read dozens from the newest and then from the Reader Picks.
I see older people offering the advice of experience, I see commenters encouraging Dakota to voice his opinion but to think through some of his more juvenile views. But nowhere do I see anyone calling him a crisis actor or dismissing him a paid shill or sought out troll.
This, as I see it, points up a difference of civility from the two sides in this debate. No comment here that I see attacks him personally.
32
Let me fix that. I'm getting sick and tired of the NYT's need to present the other side of the story about the gun rights issue. I get it that farmers and hunters use guns for legitimate purposes. My guess is most of us get it. What P's me off is the unwillingness to understand how desperately we need change in FEDERAL gun laws to start to reduce murder and suicide by guns. State laws are all over the map and generally weak and useless. Guns and lack of regulations are a difficult problem with tragic consequences because they are too easy to get and use. How about some understanding from the farmers and small town folk that guns in urban areas are a serious and deadly public health crisis?
"...very little knowledge about gun rules and regulations." What a smug observation. I'm sure most teenagers know guns can kill and need better regulations. it doesn't take Einstein to figure that out. His classmates are simply asking for better controls to prevent massacres. They are not asking police to deny his anachronistic right to bear arms. Somehow Dakota comes off as a feel-good version of Wayne La Pierre.
12
I wholeheartedly agree; firearms aren’t the problem — people are, the problem. More specifically, the people of the NRA.
13
I am a former news editor and longtime writer. I have no quarrel with Dakota’s desire that more young people better understand the many values of hunting, use of guns and a lifestyle involved with guns. My question is just who is this teenager? What lifestyle produced the generalizations about ‘other teenagers’ and the use of absolutes such as ‘every’ and ‘all’ ? It would seem to me that such statements are hardly the case and that he/she might also presume the mindsets of his/her peers based on no actual experience. I have to wonder, just who wrote this?
8
A kid still too early in his education to write with much credibility.
You are a fine young man I am sure. Please move to a urban area or here to Mexico city and then tell me if owning a life threatening device is responsible in such a stressful environment. Even I feel like shooting someone every single day : and I assure you I am a fine young man.
4
Dakota, you could have joined your class mates. You don't own or advocate the use of military grade weapons, yet by sitting out the protest you seemed to be in support of people who think they need such things. Which is it?
3
There's a video on Youtube of a guy teaching a gun safety class. He pulls out a Glock and brags about how 'not just anyone should have a Glock.' He then promptly and accidentally--shoots himself in the foot.
8
Incredibly brave kid. Incredibly brave.
2
Then, if truly you are what you say, and that is, a responsible gun owner, and I do not consider that an oxymoron, you have the greater responsibility than we who abhor guns, to see that this moronic president and the true culprit in this battle, the N.R.A., hears your message loud and clear.
When you (the generic "you") stop believing all the falsehoods being spread through right-wing outlets designed to make gun owners paranoid of what we who support strict gun control really envision, then perhaps a constructive dialogue could develop.
We must stop listening to mass media telling US what the "other side" thinks. We can find that out ourselves, at your local diner, pub, places where the public gathers and chews the fat. The Americans who I have met traveling across this country are good people. Let US not forget that. We have let mass media divide US. We who believe in gun control must be able to meet gun owners half way. Can you do that for US?
We must remove outside influences and communicate as neighbors, friends, Americans who when we pull together can solve problems, can win two World Wars, can bring about Civil Rights, can elect Barack Obama our President. Let US begin. The sooner the better.
DD
Manhattan
2
I grew up in a still largely rural area where guns and hunting were common. What's my experience of teenagers with guns? A friend shot himself in the foot. Another I knew committed suicide. Happy hunting.
13
Dakota: You sound like a responsible gun owner. If all gun owners were like you, then our nation would not be having the discussion on gun ownership that's it's having now. It's the irresponsible people, the mentally ill people, angry people and criminals who go around shooting people who are causing the mayhem. If our nation required waiting periods, background checks and mandatory safety training (like the "well-regulated militia" they have in Switzerland where most adult males have government-issued assault rifles), then I'm certain you would be able to own and enjoy shooting your guns. (Are you wearing hearing protection? Put your ear muffs on.)
3
Thank you NYT for including a viewpoint that differs from that of your opinion editors, and clearly from many of your readers. The gun owners of this country are a sizable and vocal minority, and they have the support of many of their neighbors. Yes, some gun regulation would be an improvement, but it is a mistake to think that the NRA dictates and gun owners blindly follow. Many gun owners would object strongly to gun regulation without the NRA, and many of their neighbors will support them, if only to oppose a bunch of self-righteous, condescending New Yorkers. Gun violence is not a big problem outside of big cities. School shootings remain rare relative to other dangers to our children. Citizens outside of metropolitan areas have a hard time seeing why they must give up their guns to solve an urban gun violence problem. Those who think that gun regulation will pass eventually because they view themselves as sitting on some sort of moral high ground is going to be disappointed. Gun owners are not idiots led by evil lobbyists; they are simply arguing for their own interests. Their interests will have to be accommodated in any solution.
7
Just as the rural folks you describe dislike being dictated to, so do those of us (who happen to be in the majority) who disagree with the ineffective and out of date gun laws in this country. I am a vegetarian, yet I wholeheartedly support the rights of my fellow citizens to hunt and use guns to lawfully kill animals for food. I believe that most people who are in favor of changes in gun laws feel as I do about preserving people's right to hunt. Likewise, if someone feels they need a handgun for protection or target shooting, that's their right. But gun owners want the unabridged right to conceal and carry anywhere in the US, or even openly carry, weapons designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The suggestion that improving mental health services will weed out the mass murderers utterly fails to understand that mental health care is neither sought nor accepted by individuals most likely to commit mass murder (psychopaths, e.g.), and laws limiting the right of government to commit people against their will prevents forced treatment in most cases. Why does the majority's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness weigh less than the rights of rural gun owners, whose demands seem to well exceed the needs of rural living?
A person doesn't need to have cancer to know that cancer is bad.
8
There is no logical reason to own a AR-15 semiautomatic if you are just hunting or killing livestock. For one, most hunting rules and permits do NOT allow semiautomatic. I lived around my father's hunting rifles and a pistol. We didn't fear them either, but we certainly feared a child who would pick them up.
To say that his fellow classmates are afraid of guns is completely bogus. His classmates are afraid of people who carry guns, whether they need help or just seek the thrill of killing they are feared!!
If Dakota Hanchett wants gun education in schools, then along with that course should be a history of gun violence, the number of teenage suicides by gun every year in the USA, the total number of deaths by guns every year and in the past 3 decades, and the capacity of killing that an AR-17 is capable of versus a normal hunting rifle, and how long it took to load a gun when the US Constitution was written in the 18th century.
And Dakota doesn't even touch on armor piercing bullets, or the proliferation of lead in the environment because the gun lobby will not allow the ban of lead in munitions.
Why is the NY Times putting this ridiculous apology for teen ownership of guns in its editorial column? This is not fair and balanced - but it is ala FOX News!!
5
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. While this may be a well intentioned it is wrong as is the thesis of this well intentioned opinion piece.
2
This kid nailed it! Gun safety education in schools. Sex ed is there. Drug education prevention is there. They have both proven effective. So with gun safety education, what's the hold-up?
5
Gun safety classes do not prevent kids who want to commit mass murder. That's not the issue. Access to guns is the issue.
1
Dear Dakota,
I respect your sentiments but your classmates are sick and tired of being gunned down at the hands of maniacs who should be prohibited from access to any firearms. You agree with them that we should have gun control measures in place. What you may not understand is that gun manufacturers view any gun control legislation as a threat to their revenue. Next time, please consider walking with your classmates and displaying a poster that indicates you are a gun owner but are against the rapacious greed of gun manufacturers.
5
Dakota-
The distance between Hanover, NH and Newtown, CT is just under 200 miles. Why don't you visit the Sandy Hook Elementary School and talk to the parents who children were shot down by the very same weapons you think are "cool"? I trust you will find the people living there expert enough in semi-automatic weapons, etc., to tell you their experiences and to give you the solutions that they're seeking. I would recommend getting hold of Sandy Hook Promise (https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/) as a first step. Once you've done that, I look forward reading your follow up op-ed in the New York Times.
11
On January 15, 2018 two 16-year old students in Perm, Russia entered a fourth-grade class in session with the intent to kill as many children as possible. 15 children and their teacher were taken to the hospital with various degrees of injuries; four, including teacher, in serious conditions. The offenders later admitted that they wanted to replicate the 1999 Columbine massacre. The only regret they expressed was that they couldn’t have the luxury of possessing AR-15 automatic rifles like their American idols. They just didn’t have the capability to walk in any neighborhood gun shop to purchase their means of murder. Thus they used knives.
As a result, the total number of deaths was zero. All children and the teacher had recovered since then. The perpetrators are in jail awaiting trial. I wish this American perpetrator in Parkland, FL had an access to cutlery shops only.
[This incident is easily googleable.]
12
I also hunt and own guns for that reason, but this gun violence has to stop. Other hunters I know want reasonable measures to be found to address the gun violence we are seeing in this country and yes, there are certain guns that are a problem. An AR15 is a perfect example. It's semi-automatic just like my hunting rifle (a Remington .308). However, the look of the AR 15 is that of a military style weapon. Maybe it's fun to shoot, but clearly it's a weapon of choice for people who commit mass shootings. Why do you suppose that is? Shouldn't we be finding out? In addition, hunting, unlike recreational shooting is highly regulated activity. I cannot, by law, in my state hunt with more than 5 rounds in my magazine. I have to take and pass a course and a field day before I can buy a hunting license. There are many laws that govern hunting to ensure public safety. There is no such regulation for anyone who wants to own and use a gun for recreational shooting or home protection. Why not require safety education and universal background check before people can buy a gun? The students who marched may not fully understand guns, but this conversation needs to happen and they have the right to feel and be safe. No one solution will be the lone answer. Instead there will likely need to be a multifaceted approach. Try not to feel put upon. Use this opportunity to educate your fellow students and really listen to what they are saying.
8
"If you buy a gun from a federally licensed seller, you have to do the federal background check, which can take more than an hour with all the paperwork. The gun seller should use common sense during that time to determine whether the buyer is in the right state of mind and will use a firearm only in legal ways." Really? So gun dealers are supposed to be what? Seers? Shrinks? Psychopath detectors? I've farmed and I've owned guns. And I can tell you there's no way a guy who works for Dick's or Gander Mountain has that type of sense. THAT type of sense, just ain't "common."
8
Dakota makes a great point about gun safety education, but not the way he intended. If someone contracts a venereal disease b/c they didn't learn about safe sex, that's on them. They're not endanging lives with a weapon of mass destruction. That's why the gun/people is the cause argument doesn't work. The consequences are just too grave to place all our trust in a control system designed to prevent the mentally unstable people from getting access.
1
Like the writer, I own guns and I hunt. Unlike him, I am old, 68, and a veteran of consecutive tours of duty in Vietnam. I know guns for what they are and what they do. I also understand what it is to be misunderstood by urban people who oppose guns and hunting. But consider, my fellow hunter, that hunting predates guns by untold thousands of years. Guns are efficient, but they are not essential. The human race got along without them from time before memory. I'd like to be able to keep my shotguns for bird hunting and my rifles fro deer hunting, but I don't love them. I love people, especially my family and dearest friends. Love of guns is a perversion. To respect and appreciate guns as efficient tools for hunting is one thing; to have a kind of fetish about guns is something very different. I've seen what guns do to human beings; I've seen what physical harm they do, and also what psychological harm they do to those who use them to kill other human beings. I carried an assault rifle for two years in Vietnam. I am opposed to civilian ownership of assault rifles and all other weapons of war. As far as those who do not own or use guns and do not hunt who feel uneasy and fearful about those of us who do, they have plenty of reasons to be fearful. It's up to us to join with them in reasonable ways to try to end gun violence in our homeland, to accept reasonable regulation, and in all other ways to embrace their desire for safety, and to act responsibly.
17
I'm sorry but why praise this kid for speaking up about how it's ok to own a gun.
Guns are used to kill - animals, people. We are not living in a caveman world - (or are we?) btw, there is no "humane" way to butcher an animal.
We don't depend on hunting down animals anymore for food. Please stop using the excuse that target practice, hunting & killing is a sport , owning a gun to kill is just wrong. especially kids using guns. AND military weapons.
You can defend owning & using a gun all you want, but people using guns kill.
You don't need a gun to protect yourself. Please put down the guns. It's time to stop the killing. ALL killing- and value life - people AND animals...
7
Weapons of Mass Destruction aren't the problem, people are.
The author writes "Many of the young people protesting guns right now seem to have very little knowledge about gun rules and regulations. Guns can be used safely."
We need to stop framing this topic as "gun safety" issue. It IS a "gun access" issue. Vast majority of the mass shooters used the gun(s) to kill people intentionally, NOT accidentally. I wish the shooters knew less about gun safety which hopefully would have made them shoot themselves!
Such arguments about gun safety by the pro-gun lobby is at best disingenuous.
3
When a kowtowing Judiciary rolls belly up to the President and his twisted AG flips the table and fires his prosecutors, in soft tone supports a Philippine president that executes citizens on the spot for alleged drug dealing and dependency--then looks to codify that practice in the legal system, is it not paranoid for this non-gun owning, law abiding "liberal" to see the logical intent of the 2nd Amendment?
2
They don't need to. They know that unregulated guns are mowing them down. That's all they need to know.
Why are people like this young man so confused about what responsible citizens are concerned about? I don't care that you hunt, in fact, I think it's great. I hunt as well. However, no respectable hunter would ever carry an AR15 , and no hunter I know needs more than 3 rounds to finish the job.
Ban assault rifles and high cap mags now!
5
The writer of the piece certainly has a right not to participate in the walkout but the idea that people who want to limit access to weapons like AR-15s are either ignorant about guns or at war with this teen's "culture" is just ridiculous propaganda. You don't need an AR-15 to hunt or ranch or farm. It is perfectly possible for someone to want to reduce the number of such weapons without their judging this student's way of life. And while some might be ignorant about this person's "culture" and guns' role in it, this person sounds equally ignorant (and incurious) about others' gun-free "culture." Communication goes both ways. As for sex education: it's a false equivalence. Disease and unwanted pregnancy are the results of ignorance and mistakes that can be addressed through education. Has anybody ever shot up a school by mistake? The writer doesn't have to agree with the walkout but it's just NRA propaganda to present the walkout as the result of ignorance about guns or as an attack on this person's way of life. It's neither.
4
Your contemporaries may not know as much as you do about guns but they know that guns have killed innocent schoolchildren and teenagers and such violence must stop. Isn't that enough?
4
All of my friends who want gun control are saying the same thing you are saying.
The problem is go look what the NRA and Republicans are saying.
It is not what you are saying.
Next time you can walk out with your fellow students and work to get the NRA and Republicans to do what you and the rest of us are saying.
2
Guns are killing machines. I don't need to know any more about them.
2
Admire and respect this young person for staying true to who they are, however this person nor anyone from the NRA can still simply state why anyone needs an assault rifle. They are not used for hunting purposes so why do these gun enthusiasts still feel the need to own one of them?
This kid just doesn't get it. Why should we live in a country where our kids are in danger of going to school. Why when I go to a movie theater I have to make sure I am on an end seat near the exit and the last time I went my date had to return to our car and lock her purse in the trunk because purses are now banned. Why do I have to quit going to sporting events because I am forced to stand in long lines to go through metal detectors. I am force to tolerate all these inconveniences because this punk and people like him think they have a right to slaughter deer and other animals with a weapon built for one purpose, kill humans.
4
This piece doesn’t ring true. You can’t talk about farming - really?
3
Increasingly, we hear this argument that proponents of gun control don't understand guns. I'm sorry, but to discuss gun control, the only thing you need to understand about guns is that they are used to kill people.
Personally, I "understand" guns. I'm a hunter and own several hunting guns. I don't have an AR-15 or a Glock, but I understand how they work. And because I understand them, I know that despite what the gun fanatics will tell you, they are not ideal weapons for anything but combat with humans. The AR-15 is good if you want to shoot a lot of people quickly, the Glock if you want to engage in close quarters with a single opponent.
Some will argue that the threat from other humans to our persons, property, and liberty is significant enough that we need to allow without limit the possession and carrying of guns like the AR-15 and the Glock. In other words, we live in a society so dangerous—and so inept at protecting us from violence—that we must all be prepared for human combat. But even a cursory look at the data on crime and gun deaths shows that the opposite is true: our society is generally quite safe, but an increase in guns correlates well with an increase in deadly violence.
Knowing the difference between a semiautomatic action and a falling block is not necessary to debate gun control. All that is needed is good data on the prevalence of guns and the number of gun deaths—and the honesty to admit that such data suggest that more guns equal more deaths.
1
I am shocked that this was published. The author suggests that gun owners are victims and that gun opponents are closed to dialogue. The victims are the dead, inured, and the millions forever traumatized because of senseless and avoidable gun tragedy. Also, regarding a dialogue, has the author actually seen the discussions between the Florida students and gun advocates? They are pleading for a conversation. Last off, AR-15? Come on.
8
I don’t have a problem with having a gun for hunting, or a gun if you live in an isolated area and want to protect your family, but an AR for hunting? How lousy a shot to you have to be to need one of those for that task?
A young man with a hunting education, it’s not a bad thing. What he doesn’t have is the life’s experience to differentiate between hunting and combat experience. The NRA depends on that ignorance to brain wash gun owners into thinking they will loose all their guns if some sane gun control laws come to be.
To paraphrase E. Hemingway, it’s a whole lot different when you are hunting men who are shooting back.
Perhaps some of these wannabes could be recruited to shoot these ARs in combat somewhere, the M16 has a three shot burst mode the would love. We could send these people in ahead of our real troops to soften up the firefight. That’s what the North’s Koreans did, they sent gillions of unarmed civilians in ahead of the combat troops. These hero’s could test to their skills and resolve.
1
Does this kid know that an AR-15 costs upward of 1500 bucks? How can you argue the cost effectiveness of this tool? It's like drive nails with a gold hammer. An AR-15 is not the right tool for home defense nor for hunting deer.
1
I don't know anything about jumping off bridges...other than I don't want to do it. So what if these students don't know anything about guns...they know they're tired of getting shot at and that's enough.
1
I really like your idea about treating firearms like sex ed or drugs and alcohol. There is a lot that people should learn about guns to de-mystify them, and teach how to prevent them from being misused. The solution to most problems is not to lock them away - it's knowledge, and preparation, and the kind of exposure that will keep you safe and open the door to new ideas, whether or not you agree with them.
2
The fact that people thinks guns are "cool" is a problem. In fact from what I have read many of the young mass murderers in recent years think that killing people in large numbers is really "cool" and it's actually like a game for them. Not a great state of affairs.
2
People who want to live in a country where the average citizen is prohibited from owning handguns or any type of firearm should move to India or Mexico where the law-abiding population is now totally disarmed except for the politically connected, the corrupt police, and the criminals.
I have spent some time in India on several different occasions. I have derived the following information from the local Indian daily newspapers that I would read every day.
Every business from the large plantations and industries to the Mom & Pop retail stores must pay illegally armed people (criminal gang members openly carrying pistols and assault weapons) for protection services.
The particular local armed gang that claims the area (or the turf like the old New York City Protection Rackets before the New York population was allowed pistol permits) where the business is located requires that the business pay the gang for the protection services.
Failure to pay for protection can result in death, rape, fire, theft, or other bad things happening to your family.
Turf wars between gangs are also a very severe problem in India and Mexico.
3
You don't support your statement that those against guns know nothing about them. One thing we know is that you and your family are exposed to unique dangers that non gun owning families are not: accidents, suicides, homicides and deliberate injuries.
And you don't even begin to say why you "need" AR-15's. Because there is no reason.
You are too young to own or use guns. You are not too young to have an opinion about them.
Thanks for sharing that opinion. It only confirms mine that guns have no use in modern society. And farmers and hunters have done without them forever.
3
Sorry - I no longer care what gun owners think or want - they had their chance.
4
We don't need to know much about guns. They kill people. Military-grade weapons are not needed for hunting or protecting your property. No one is coming for your guns!
1
They know one thing about guns: they have been - and will be - used to murder their friends. And possibly themselves if they are unfortunate.
If AR rifles are legal, why can't the average person also buy/own RPGs or flamethrowers? I'm sure they also are "fun to shoot." Where should the line be drawn as to what munitions or weapons the general public can own?
2
Recently "Youth" were celebrated for showing us the way. But, clearly, only those youths who agree with NY Times commenters. I didn't read too many of the comments here, many were too sickening, including ones that hope for this student's death.
2
The basic premise of AR-15 owners (and future owners) is, “Trust us, America, we won’t snap. We’re good, God-fearing, simple people. We promise not to spray bullets in schools, churches, theaters, concerts, and other soft targets.”
Similar folks would like to own a Stinger missile launcher and missile. “Trust us, airlines passengers, we won’t snap. We’re good people.”
Similar folks would like to own a bazooka. “Trust us, America, we won’t snap.”
The only reason the AR-15 is legal is because it has the shape of a gun. But it’s a weapon of mass destruction no less deadly than a stinger missile or bazooka. When it comes to WMD, one’s promise of not snapping is hardly adequate to ensure public safety.
1
This is utter nonsense. I also shoot and the fact is that there is no legitimate need for an AR15 or any military style weapons. That is a TINY price to pay for saving lives.
I just watched Julia Cho's "Office Hours", an excellent play which examines gun violence in schools. What amazed me about the play was that the majority of the audience balked when the play asked them to get inside the heads of angry male shooters. Here in the Bay Area, we love to give everything a standing ovation. This is the only play I have seen in 25 years in which the majority of the audience sat in stony-faced silence.
These angry men, it's almost always men, are society's rejects. Our society elevates some men to demi-god status and crushes other men in a way that women never have to experience. A man can be a loser, a woman can't. A man can "lose" his masculinity. A woman is never completely neutered by society. Guns give society's losers power over their abusers. Unfortunately, their abusers are all of society so in their minds we all deserve to die. Can we identify these angry men before they go on a rampage? Maybe, but what do we do with them if they are angry and haven't killed anyone yet? Innocent before proven guilty is the law of the land. Sorry responsible gun owners and hunters, the only logical answer is to limit access to guns for everyone.
It should be just as easy to own a gun as it is to drive a car, and just as hard.
1
Let me tell you something about hunters, I know more than a few. They are not out there feeding their family, they are simply killing animals for sport. The other day I overheard a friend inviting another friend to go otter hunting here in Florida. I doubt very much they were planning on a river otter dinner, the were just feeding a sick blood lust. Not cool.
3
I am a Navy veteran ('65-'69) of the Vietnam war and I know a lot more than the author knows about weapons, incuding the AR-15. I also hunted small game at age 12 with a 12 gauge shotgun. (I gave it up immediately after my first foray in the "sport." I was distraught after killing a "cottontail' as my father called rabbits.)
So I find it disappointing that the Times provided this naive 17-year old with a platform to sell the NRA line from start to finish. Not surprisingly, and as other comments demonstrate, he never addressed the most glaring fact: that an AR-15, likes it military cousin, the M- 16, is designed to kill as many people in the shortest amount to time. So don't let the NRA con you Mr. Hanchett; there is no other reason that justify the AR-15's existence.
2
Unfortunately nothing is going to change with the gun culture until gun users are turned into virtual pariahs, like smokers, something that once seemed an impossibility.
2
Dakota, In the future consider your audience before exercising your opinion. Offering it to the NYT was like kicking the hornet's nest. Don't be afraid of what others may think or say as long as what you are doing is safe, legal, and causes no harm to others. To that end, try going vegetarian for a couple of months. You'll feel better for it, and you might have a greater appreciation for all life forms because of it.
1
The "I'm open to discussion, but the OTHER side doesn't like to debate" line is a classic tell about how disingenuous these people are. The second you actually bring up facts about gun violence, like that US teens are as likely to be killed by a firearm as from a car accident, they go back to accusations of ignorance and 2nd Amendment rights.
1
Dear America,
No one is propsing that ALL guns be banned.
No one HAS EVER proposed that all guns be banned.
Please stop making decisions based on fallacious arguments. People are dying because of it.
4
There is a stark contrast between the eloquence of the teens who have taken up the anti-gun cause and the poorly expressed, faulty logic of the teen who wrote this column. Apparently it takes a modicum of intelligence to realize guns are evil.
2
I had a college friend who as a kid shot his best friend to death with .22 caliber rifle -- a hunting accident. My friend led a tortured life till he ended it all.
18
When I was a kid in Ft Worth Texas, someone shot a kid off the scoreboard at our kid's prairie baseball field where we all played team sports - from far, far outside the ball park, and they had no idea the bullet could travel that far or that they had just killed a girl. Somebody who probably just thought playing around with a gun was "cool".
"I think people who use guns in mass shootings are using those guns to seek help."
No, they're using those guns to kill people.
18
This piece makes me even more wary of people who defend the ownership of guns. It is incredibly naive and self-serving. I'm so sorry to intrude on your family's "culture," but your "culture" is dangerous. It's nice that you personally and your family and your entire community in Vermont will never shoot anyone, but your firearms can be stolen from your homes and used by others. It's nice that you trust gun sellers to use "common sense," but it is ridiculous to think they can know enough about someone to know if they will become a murderer. I'm so glad you and your family can continue to have fun; it certainly justifies your continued buying of firearms. Too bad other families pay the price by losing their children. Oh, well, that's the price to pay for your "culture," I guess.
18
Students who walked-out-and-about are encouraging positive action about guns. This fellow done hunts and shoot AR-15’s, claims no duty. Positive action is a grown-up’s duty of citizenship. To paraphrase, guns have no civic duty; people have civic duty. He says, “Guns can be used safely.” But guns are not used safely. Their sole functions are to kill. Used correctly, they kill. Question, if guns can be used safely, why are they not used safely? The unspoken lie of his column, if I have a gun, I will be safe. Fiction. A lie. More guns, greater dangers, more risk, which produces harm. Fewer guns and more regulation, less risk reduces harm. That is why guns are a matter for the police, for law, for insurance, and for public health. It is pointless to write a column and not deal with issues. The simple-minded, “I hunt, therefore guns are great” is not an answer no matter how often shouted. In our NRA world, if guns were safe, NRA’s Congress would not have outlawed research and record-keeping, a law against the public interest, same as the Second Amendment stands against the national interest. Congress would have mandated research and record-keeping to prove that guns are safe. Real record-keeping would reveal that good-guy-gun-nuts, die from bullets as much or more than real people. This fellow, like me, is a survivor which does give him a license to lie. Survivors, armed or not, have no immunity. Guns do not vaccinate gun nuts.
6
In one totally whack-out community a student was punished for not protesting., In another students were apparently paddled for joining the protest. There has to be a middle ground, people.
The most comical places are where oh-so-elite teachers let the kids loose to protest and the teenagers simply run everywhere they can and tear flags or other things up. Is CNN or Mr. Steyer paying the costs of vandalized things?
3
It’s common for gun enthusiasts to minimize the concerns of non-gun-enthusiasts, on the basis of low understanding of gun mechanics.
I agree that people should educate themselves on guns, not because guns are necessary tools, but because there are very good arguments against any ownership of guns, *especially* once you learn more about them.
An AR-15 is pointless for hunting. The animal runs away at the first crack of the gun, bleeds as it goes, and goes down. You then go to the prey and finish the job. Something like an AR-15 would only equip a bad shooter with a few more shots, while the animal is in flight, with the chances of a clean shot reducing by the nanosecond. You only need one shot to take down an elk. If you can’t master that one shot, you shouldn’t be hunting, and certainly shouldn’t be requesting better access to assault rifles.
Even a bear...they’re usually protected wildlife but what if one came at you? An AR-15 would be better than a single action colt 45 right? Not necessarily. Because bears can still charge at you even with several bullet wounds. I would feel safer with a bigger, badder gun, but I would not be any more formidable against that bear.
Other talking points from Dakota’s camp including the Puckle gun or the girandoni air rifle. These are promoted as reasons why the founding fathers took semiautos into account when writing the 2nd amendment. They’re weak points because those guns were never taken seriously and never sold well.
3
Dakota, if people like you ran the NRA we probably wouldn't be in the position we are today. You sound intelligent, fair minded, and you probably support reasonable gun control, like background checks. However, the position of the NRA is "no gun restrictions of any kind ever!". They are fine with anyone owning an AR-15's, which as a hunter, I'm sure you know is an assault weapon and really appropriate for normal hunting. Most people are not against hunters having normal hunting weapons. We are against high capacity assault rifles with bump stocks, etc. Weapons that were designed for military personnel to inflict as much damage and carnage as possible on the enemy.
The problem is, you're reasonable, but, the group that represents your gun rights, the NRA, is not. And it's their extreme views that have brought us to where we are now. So, if we end up with gun control laws that infringe on your rights, it will be because the massive political power the NRA wields was misused. And that abuse of power has allowed the wrong people to get the wrong guns allowing them to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. Many of them small children.
So, the problem is less about guns and more about the NRA extreme positions on guns that have helped mass murderers kill a bunch of people who are simply trying to stay safe and not get shot.
If you want to make progress on this, tell the NRA to start backing hunters instead of assault rifle and bump stock manufacturers.
5
Correct. "Firearms aren't the problem -- people are" and since you will never fix people, you must take the weapons away. Matches aren't the problem, toddlers are, so you take matches away from toddlers. See the logic?
About hunting: STOP hunting. Animals hunt. You are not an aninal. Don't hunt.
8
All I know about guns is that there are way too many of them in what one likes to call a civilized country and that they kill people and far, far too many children. And that they are regarded as a sacred right because two or three hundred years ago militias were the way to go. Weird! Time for a re-think.
5
he fails to mention the numerous people (and children) accidentally killed by firearms. so, no, they're not all innocent fun.
and NO ONE ever said hunters cant hunt. this debate is about the ridiculous access we have to firearms. there's a reason it's so bad now....and it's not the hunters. it's the lobbying group they fund.
4
I think if someone cares more about their personal gun ownership than the lives of 17 teenagers, there's something wrong with them. Their opinions don't need to be supported by the paper of record.
11
I don't need to know a single thing about guns to know that I don't want to be shot by one.
Put another way: I don't need to be an expert on the details of school murders to know they need to STOP.
3
Nice try, kid, but I’m afraid you’re wasting your time. You’re being rational while your opponents don’t even know how to be rational. They live in a postmodern world where logic and objectivity don’t exist. All that matters are their own personal feelings and ideas. Try to look at an argument from another person’s point of view? What a concept!
They live in a world of stress and anxiety and fear. They cannot admit to themselves that the culture is broken and no longer teaches morals, ethics, empathy, or logic. They cannot admit that this broken, immoral culture is producing broken immoral sociopaths.
They cannot admit that technical fixes like gun control will never stop people from killing each other, that technical fixes will never mend broken minds and hearts. They cannot admit that until the culture heals itself it will keep spiralling down into darkness. That is too scary. So they grasp for straws.
I love and admire your naïveté. Keep on trying.
6
We live in a postmodern world where adolescent boys shoot up their schools with AR 15s with the stated intent of killing as many of their peers as possible.
Logic:
1) without access to AR 15s, adolescent boys could not shoot up their schools and classmates.
2) the point the author makes is entirely about his family and himself. Can’t get too much more into “all that matters are their own personal feelings and ideas,” than in this attempt at a defense of guns. He even specifically mentions his own use of an AR 15 and yet wonders that peers are disturbed. Hmmmm. Maybe some therapy is in order
3) once again, a gun owner tries to make the “point” that it isn’t guns that are the problem, it’s people. The nra just got passage of a law that permits people adjudicated as mentally ill to acquire guns and gun licenses. Where’s the logic in that?
It is you, Observer, who are irrational. I’m hoping Dakota is young enough and open minded enough to take the leap to logic and at some point realize that AR15s are weapons of war, not target practice toys. They are intended for one thing alone: killing lots of people quickly.
His comment about taking an hour to get government approval to own a gun is a bit silly. I wonder why he says the other students seem afraid of him. Mot teens would accept a farm kid who feels the need for a gun, but a semi automatc assault weapon, is built to kill people not deer or small game
3
If this is a genuine student, I appreciate the willingness to write in defense of something one believes in. However, the NRA refrain that "people are" the problem, not firearms, is suspect in this letter. Despite what this person says, we should be afraid of firearms, they are dangerous, in the right and wrong hands. They were created to kill, both animals and people.
A sensible debate on this subject doesn't begin by reading from the NRA's magazine and regurgitating its talking points.
2
This writer supports gun control legislation. So why, exactly, did he/(she?) not join the protest? It seems lies because he didn't share the goals of the protests so much as that he felt that those who marched were marching against him and his values. Seems like youth around the country need to be more accepting of people who are different. Youth who become extreme in their views, whether on guns or Islam are often revealed as feeling that they did not fit in, were not welcome, not for any extreme views they held at the time, but for minor social differences - living a farm lifestyle, a different religion, different accent, fashion sense. The ability to accept, befriend and treasure people who are different starts long before high school. Vivian Paley's approach to moral development for young children, for example, needs to be widely adopted.
2
Would more knowledge about guns on the part of this kid's classmates kept them any safer when a gunman killed them with an assault weapon? Do you really need to know what kind of gun or ammunition was used to rip your flesh from your shattered bones? Would knowledge about guns have made a difference in how many people have been the victims of gun violence in the United States?
1
Recently, I read a piece in which the author thinks AR-15 style rifles should be outlawed. I suspected the author did not know much about firearms, and so, I wrote to him to explain a few things. He wrote back to thank me and admitted that he is ignorant when it comes to firearms.
Several of the commenters here cannot understand why anyone would want to own an AR-15 rifle. That position is a signal that some of those commenters may not be aware of certain key facts.
All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines of the same caliber have identical capabilities. All fire one round per trigger pull, the rate of fire depends on how fast the shooter can work the trigger and all can take magazines of any capacity.
I have an AR-15 of caliber .223 and a Ruger Mini-14 of caliber .223. What is the difference between them? The Min-14 has a nice brown wooden finish whereas the AR-15 is all metal/plastic and black. Both rifles can come in various configurations, but the fire capabilities remain the same.
AR-15 style rifles are widely owned, and that might explain why they were used in some recent shootings. These AR-15's have no advantage over any other semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber and that takes a detachable magazine.
Suppose bank robbers were using 2018 Red Toyota Camry's LE as get-away cars. Banning 2018 Red Toyota Camry's LE to address bank robberies is just as problematic as banning AR-15's to address school shootings.
3
You seem to be ignorant about the weapons you profess to know so much about. The AR-15 inflicts mass carnage. It is a weapon of warfare. You don’t believe me? Ask the surgeons who argue that the wounds inflicted by these guns are beyond surgical repair. They went to medical school. They their residencies in one of the hardest areas of medicine. They are probably really knowledgeable about the devastation wrought by the weapons you choose to defend. I’ll take their opinion over your opinion. Thanks.
1
The classic NRA deflection using ridiculous false analogies.
Like Dakota, I, too, own guns...one or two shy of twenty at last count. My experience with them is also much like his: hunting, plinking, reminders of my heritage, inherited from my father. Like Dakota, I have handled AR-15 rifles. Well, not the AR-15 of mass killers' preference, but the true, full-automatic M-16. The last time I did that was Nov., 1970, more than 50 years before Dakota was born, when I signed my rifle into the company armorer for the last time in Dian, Vietnam.
Like Dakota, I believe the shooter is the primary problem, not the weapon.
Unlike Dakota, I believe the availability of the weapon is a major and integral part of the whole problem but I do not believe twisting and contorting this relationship is a rational approach to an answer. The mere fact that they can lay their hands on this much lethality, and do so easily, feeds their sickness.
Like Dakota, I, too, was once 16, had the world by the tail and knew all the answers to the questions that stymied the old folks. Those were the days.
But, unlike Dakota (I sincerely hope for his sake), I was a war vet at 23 who had seen the ghastly damage these weapons wreak on human flesh, hundreds of times.
The AR-15 and its kin are not humane hunting weapons, Dakota. Their design, their intent, is the taking of human life. They are not meant to put a squirrel in the frying pan.
Again, I hope you understand this by the time you are 23, but do not have to repeat my experiences to have your eyes opened.
6
The AR can be an excellent target rifle. People spend money on after market barrels and trigger sets. You don't have to be a gun smith to work on one.
My style of target shooting is 22 lr bolt action rifle. I've thought of getting something longer range maybe a varmint rifle. A bolt action with a heavy barrel but I hesitate are people going to say what he doing with a snipers rifle? Those things are only good for killing people?
1
Good essay, Dakota. However I don't think "guns are cool" is a reasonable argument to defend your arsenal. I propose that gun culture is beginning to evolve in this country and believe you can be an agent for change. Do you hunt with your AR?
1
They don’t have to know anything more than they’re tired of being threatened by gun violence. That’s all anyone has to know
Your right to a hobby does not trump my right to be alive.
3
I am sorry Dakota but you haven't thought his through.
Your fellow students walked out to honor their fellow students who died and you suggest it's to protest firearms.
What do think that means? What does the phrase protest firearms mean?
It is not a logical statement. It is incomplete.
I'd like to complete it for you, in 2 probable ways.
You probably mean protesting firearms with an end to banning them, or, you might mean protesting firearms with the goal of controlling them better.
If you have taken the first meaning, that your fellow students are trying to take away your gun, I believe you are misinformed, but unfortunately it is because you have joined a political point of view that believes control is the equivalent of prohibition.
If you cannot support this cause, I say shame on you.
Given the political climate of this country I know there is no way you will see this issue any way other than the government is threatening your second amendment right.
Sad.
3
Odds are this kid has never been at the wrong end of that weapon he's holding. That's all you need to know or understand about a gun of any kind to be able to go out and protest.
2
I'm glad that Dakota has the presence of mind to know that guns need regulation and that they're lethal.
However it's clear that Dakota's also of the mindset that people are the problem instead of guns. To him and his family and others, a gun is a tool. The difference is that like no other type of tool, it can be easily used for the purpose of killing by people who are inclined to do so.
Is anyone under an illusion as to why guns were invented?
The people that are identified as being the problem would have a far more difficult time of accomplishing their violent agenda if there were no guns available.
How is it at all possible that some people feel their right to gun ownership is more important than a person's life?
Two angry people are in a room. At least one has a gun. What do we imagine the outcome?
With no gun, the deadliness of the situation is inargueably immensely reduced.
I am a 64-year-old veteran who qualified as a Navy Expert Marksman on the M1911 .45 pistol in 1975 and shot my first .22 rifle as a 12-year-old in New Hampshire. I believe what these students are marching against is the attitude, exemplified by the NRA, that says "Nope, nothing we can do, the slaughter must continue."
12
Why do you need semiautomatic guns to hunt? And why don't you care how many wonderful young people in your age group have been killed and could continue to be killed by these weapons? Every time I read something like this, I despair about our educational system--how young people can't think critically and put their own perceptions about their "rights" to own a killing machine in the context of the rights of all young people of his age to live. Come on! You need to do better for the benefit of public safety and the reputation of your fellow young people.
4
Dakota is a far more pleasant voice to listen to than Wayne LaPierre, whose fear-mongering diatribes are far more childish and pathetic than this offering. I, too, see no reason for AR-15s and the like, support hunters and gun lovers, and support background checks for all gun purchases and limits on the size of ammo magazines. I imagine I am in the majority, but the gun club holds us all hostage, with the students being the sacrificial lambs.
The typical gun advocate viewpoint that not being proficient in the technical aspects of guns or the way of life of people who own them disqualifies not only their argument but somehow diminishes the weight of their opinion.
What is really pathetic about this kid's argument is he lecturing kids who live in Florida, which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation where, and I am presuming here, they ARE exposed to guns and gun culture in a lawful and non-threatening way.
And don't let the fact that this the writer is "just a kid." The NRA often uses kids like this (along with their parents since the kid is a minor) as local plaintiffs for all kinds of challenges to the wishes of the vast majority who want sensible gun control.
1
The author is well-spoken and makes his case intelligently. But he will never speak for the NRA. For the NRA is no longer lobbying on behalf of gun owners, but rather on behalf of gun manufacturers. They employ Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch, and pay them well; both from humble beginnings, these two could never have imagined what they are earning in their capacity as peddlers of hysteria. Gun owners understand that there is no need for AR-15s to be imported, manufactured, or sold in this country. Ask me what part of "shall not be abridged" do I not understand, and I will ask you what part of "well-regulated militia" do you not understand. But I guess we'll need those AR-15s to stop the great Canadian invasion that is our constant threat.
4
People don't have to know a lot about guns in order to be killed by one.
While I love to read and hear the voices of a younger generation, it's very sad to see how much this kid gets wrong. I sincerely hope his half thought-out arguments evolve over time.
1
And what does the author think about AR-15s? Do you need them on the farm? And all the nonsense about keeping us safe? A good security system can keep you safer than waking up at 3 am in the dark after hearing a noise then trying to find your loaded gun which hopefully is not under your pillow...We are really talking about who should have guns and what kind of guns--
If AR-15 can be used for hunting, so should RPG or hand grenade.
1
A course in statistics, hopefully, would change this young man's mind. He could try this on for example: Among the things that can happen in a home with a gun that cannot happen in a home without one:. 1) You can commit suicide with it. 2) You can accidentally be shot or shoot a loved one. 3) Your home could be burgled when you are absent, your gun stolen and later used in a violent crime. 4) You can use it for self defense. The possible outcomes are listed by the frequency of their occurrence. The question is this: Is your home safer with or without the gun. If you answer with--you flunk math and will probably make a great political columnist...
1
Let’s be very, very clear. The 2nd amendment is not and has never been a national suicide pact. The NRA has purchased politicians so that the weapons industry can profit. The NRA is a lobbying org for them first and foremost. They are not a mouthpiece for a civil society. They front for the Merchants of Death and are currently demanding that EVERYONE EVERYWHERE be armed. The US is not war zone. If you want to live in one join the military and go to one. Signed, a former US Marine.
3
Let's reinstate the Military Draft for Men and Women who love to play with Assault Rifles. Shooting Range is another place where you can be allowed to shoot Assault Rifles to your heart's desire.
1
The protesters know that any 15 year old kid with problems and a gun can kill the protesters and their friends. You don’t have to know anything about guns to realize that high schools kids in American are in much greater danger than anywhere else in the world because of our insane gun laws.
This is the reality the writer accidentally admits to - "... it was very safe because guns were not allowed to be loaded while on school property".
1
Nice to see that this young man has been able to assimilate and regurgitate all the NRA's and GOP's main talking points on military-style weapons. I just wish he could articulate his thoughts and feelings as well as the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Maybe he should try talking to some of them.
I'm sick and tired of being told to listen sympathetically to people who "… own firearms not only because I think they are cool, but also because …" Let them listen sympathetically to this: guns are designed to kill animals and people. They are dangerous and need to be under control.
"…Yes, I have used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles …" AR-15s, PLURAL? What on earth use does any civilian have for even one of these things? I'm not surprised that this kids classmates are scared of him.
"I think people who use guns in mass shootings are using those guns to seek help." No. Those people are using guns to kill people. If he can use his imagination to picture how much these shooters need help, maybe he should use it to picture a world where, lacking guns, these troubled people would have to seek help by seeing counselors or priests. In that better world, there would be fewer corpses in the schools.
3
If guns make you feel safer, why is it illegal to carry a handgun let alone AR-15 on Congress or in House or around the president by ordinary people? Why were people not allowed to carry pistols during Republican National Convention?
2
No one needs an AR-15 for hunting. No one is protesting rifles. This is apples and oranges.
1
I believe that the "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is more important than the right to the entertainment of shooting things. Go to a penny arcade if you must shoot.
6
I can see where the author’s coming from, but I fail to see how a teenager like them, and their family, requires the usag of an ar-15. I have friend’s who farm and hunt, however, they do not have access to military grade weaponry and can sufficiently carry out their farming and hunting practices. From what I’ve read on the policies of America gun law, they are very broad, and do not require as many hoops to jump through if one were getting an American driver’s license, which is what I thought most of these protesters were trying to point out and hopefully rectify.
No one wants to see people harmed, but change has to be made. Educating people on gun safety is a great start, however, it does not solve the primary issue that no matter how well one knows the in’s and out’s of a gun (responsible gun owners), deranged maniacs have equal access to those same guns - the ar-15 included, and there are no moves to limit this.
4
Do you accept that you should get trained and pass a test, and then be required to carry a license in order to drive? Guns and cars are both safe when used carefully and deadly when misused. Gun control advocates want guns registered and owners licensed as cars are. Just like an ordinary license doesn't let you drive a tank, they'd like weapons of war out of civilian hands.
Do you really have a problem with these ideas?
3
Don't juxtapose guns with hunting and farming in your essay. It's using a logical fallacy where you imply that those who are opposed to guns are also opposed to hunting and farming.
6
Dakota, those of us who don't hunt or use guns don't want to take away your right to use them. We just think the killing and carnage must stop. The first step is to ban assault weapons such as the AR-15. These are only useful to kill other humans in large numbers and have no purpose in a civilized society. We also want to see the NRAs power drastically curtailed. This organization has metastasized into a threat to the public safety, not only by aiding and abetting senseless violence to maximize the gun industry's profits, but also by corrupting our politics and public discourse. In short, I hope you can understand that there are higher priorities for our society than your right to shoot an AR-15.
4
Dakota, I appreciate you taking the time to write this. Our family also owns guns, but we are marching on Saturday. We believe in hunting, but you don't need to do that with an AR15. Wouldn't you agree? You wrote a lot about your justification for guns, but no one is coming after your hunting rifle. The issue at hand is AR15s because they used in mass shootings. You weren't really clear on your justification for that other than you think it is cool and fun, but cool and fun never cuts it when people are being murdered.
It is sad that you believe people are against you because of your views on guns. You think they are afraid of you. I wonder if you have reached out in some way to confront your own fears. Have you reached out to anyone affected by gun violence? You might be a bit fearful of dealing with their feelings and might find your justifications difficult to convey to a grieving parent, brother or sister. Whatever negative quality you see in someone else, you also possess it, so you might be wise to examine your own fears instead of criticizing and blaming others.
If you believe in gun control as you say you do, then join us in the march. You admit our current laws are not strict enough, so what stops you from asking for more to be done? Is it your fear that if you are "with us" then your are against the lifestyle you grew up with? This is not an us or them issue. We should all be working together for better gun laws.
3
The argument that gun control does not work in the USA is false. There has only been 3 documented cases of murder with fully automatic weapons since the machine gun ban in 1933. There have been ZERO gernade launcher deaths in the USA. Bans do work.
3
"They’ve been told not to . . . talk about guns."
Yeah, by Dakota Hanchett. The whole premise of this article is that only gun owners are qualified to speak about guns. That's like saying that only statisticians are qualified to speak about statistics! What if a statistician points out that the presence of guns in America is directly correlated to our absurdly high crime rate? Did that person forget how to use numbers? Or should everybody just sit down in front a police officer while he shows them the parts of a Glock?
By this logic, only auto mechanics should establish speed limits and other traffic laws. "How dare you try to argue for a certain speed limit," a mechanic might say, "when you can't even fix a muffler!" " You think there should be a stop sign on Elm street, but you can't even replace an alternator!"
I wish Dakota every happiness hunting, but he knows not of what he speaks here.
5
Well, it looks like the "guns don't kill people - people kill people" argument is alive and well in the younger generation. It's important to put that out there since we've mostly seen uplifting coverage of young people confronting gun violence over the past few weeks. This debate is sure to go on, ad infinatum, in this country.
Unfortunately, the author totally misses the point. Gun safety is not in the same ballpark as sex education. One is a universal physiological phenomenon, the other is a willful problem. Sure, people who plan to own guns should be trained in how to use them. However, the larger problem is the sheer number of guns out there and the ease of access to them. Accidental discharges do happen (as we saw recently when a trained teacher accidentally shot a student), but willful suicide and homicide are the much larger problem. A problem that is exponentially out of proportion in this country relative to the rest of the world, not because of video games or psychiatric problems, which are roughly the same here as anywhere else, but because of the number of guns. It's a simple fact that we've chosen to ignore or look past constantly because shooting guns is fun.
1
Dear Dakota,
An AR15 is a weapon to hunt humans. Hunt. Humans. Definitely not "cool." A real hunter, and by 'real' I mean one who is hunting out of a sense of hunger, not gross insecurity and dysfunction, a real hunter who is hungry and in need of some protein should probably go to the grocery store. And no, I don't believe that is as fun as killing living things for someone with that insecure and incompetent mindset, I just think it's way less repulsive. If you can afford the ammo, you can afford a pound of beef.
4
Dakota mostly stayed away from the NRA talking points except for the "people not guns are the problem." It is irresponsible to say that only people are the problems and not the weapons designed only to kill. In general, I've no problem with people using guns for hunting or sport. I have a problem with military style rifles in the hands of civilians. I don't believe "fun to shoot" trumps their deadliness if used incorrectly.
If the gun owners of America think that they are responsible gun owners then what is wrong about updating the rules of gun ownership to match the this centuries needs? Universal background checks, databases of gun ownership, gun insurance for accidental injuries on each fire arm. A tax to pay for the carnage of irresponsible gun use. The problem with gun owners is they think those of us who choose not to own guns can't have a say. We should have a say because we are at risk of being victims of gun violence.
2
I commend Dakota for writing/publishing his views. I think we need more Dakotas on all sides of this issue. I have plenty of friends who hunt and some rarely buy meat at a super market. None of them use AR-15 to hunt, some of them are retired veterans who are able to use an AR-15 but appreciate the harm an AR-15 can do.
Just one simple point to Dakota's, if we have to depend on common sense of private sellers, why cannot we do the same thing with drugs and alcohol? A young person can go and buy an Ar-15 with ammo, but not alcohol? This is even true with drug/alcohol education in our public schools. The same common sense should extend to guns. It should not be the NRA using scare tactics on this important issue.
2
Seriously? Was there some obligation to have a high school kid trot out these same arguments to justify owning toys that help lead to upwards of 30,000 deaths in this country?
And I think that the kids walking out know one thing about guns: That they kill people.
If he's being honest in what he says about it being hard to be a gun-owning teenager right now that's a very good thing. I hope he feels ostracized and marginalized and shamed. That would be ideal.
1
No it wouldn't be ideal. It would be the makings of a mass school shooter.
1
I think Dakota wrote a pretty good piece about guns from the gun culture's point of view. I can understand his point of view, although I am mostly of the anti-gun culture. There are a few areas of concern in his opinion article. I do not think gun sellers can or should be allowed to evaluate in an hour if someone is fit to own a gun. I know people who said the 10 day waiting period in California was helpful because they went into a gun shop to buy a gun to commit suicide and the waiting period saved their life. Also, while it is true that people kill, it makes no sense to sell automatic rifles meant for war to ordinary citizens. Also, while it sounds like Dakota and his family hunt for good reasons, many people hunt for sport and for the fun of killing and capturing trophies. If you have watched the show Trophy, all I can say is those types of hunters would probably hunt people if it were possible. They hunt and murder animals for fun. They kill them and watch them suffer in pain as they die. They hunt illegally. Those types of hunters are not decent human beings. Dakota also mentions mass shooters are using guns to seek help. I disagree. I think they are way past the point of seeking help. By the time they start killing, society has already seen and ignored or dismissed the signs. Many people predicted the Parkland shooter would one day do a school shooting. Most, if not all, mass shooters are mentally ill. But very, very few of the mentally ill are killers.
2
Dakota..thanks. all good. But you failed to touch upon the undeniable fact (and core of the "gun" issue) is that many of the people who commit wanton murder, from abusive spouses to school shooters were "good guys with guns" (like yourself) until the moment they pulled the trigger and were forever transformed into "bad guys"(the kind everyone agrees should never have gotten hold of a gun). You describe an experience with guns that echoes my own; parental guidance, respect for safety and the serious responsibility of gun ownership. So why not support a nationwide system that pairs vetting, training, background checking, etc. in a proportional manner relative to the lethality of the weapon? This is no different from licensing requirements for driving or flying a private vehicle. Is it not absurd that on your 18th birthday you can by BOTH a .22 rifle and a .223 with a 30 round clip? The 1st Amendment doesn't allow us to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow unfettered access to any kind and number of guns.
4
I think a big problem is that the two sides don’t understand what the other side wants. I want all guns, gun owners, and gun sales to be traced. Gun owners have a great responsibility to keep their guns safe and away from criminals. I suspect a small percentage of the population should not be allowed to have a gun. Unfortunately, the NRA tells their members that those holding my views actually want all guns eliminated and the rules I proposed are just a first step to eliminating gun ownership. This is not so; I have no problem with reasonable gun ownership for sport, hunting, self protection, or even to stop an evil government from overstepping the bounds of the Constitution (I think this unlikely, but had I been German in 1923,I would also have thought that unlikely as well) Guns since World War II have killed more American civilians than all the Americans killed during that war. What have we gained from that sacrifice? Would a few inexpensive common sense laws have saved half those gun deaths?
2
Dakota, I fully respect what you are saying. You are what anyone would call a responsible gun owner. You have been trained and know how to use the guns, safely, through licensed and accredited programs. Your parents have been responsible in assuring you know about gun safety and assuring you will continue to be a responsible gun owner. Hopefully, you will teach your children the same. They are not toys, as I'm sure you well know.
If everyone in this country were given the oversight and training you have received, it would not be an issue.
1
I think I have a good reason to be afraid of weaponry like the AR-15. I totally respect your right to own guns, and I have no problem with target shooting or hunting. But I cannot give a place in civilized society to machinery like automatic weapons, whose only purpose for existence is to kill other human beings.
When people try to justify ownership of these weapons, or describe them in such benign terms that they sound like no big deal, they lose their argument with me. We have enough war zones in the world. We don’t need more in our own backyards.
1
Responsible gun owners take safety measures and classes on firearm use and safety. For the sake of public safety, gun registration with certification from a class or safety test is not only prudent but essential. When careless driving from poor training or irresponsible behavior hurt public safety we required a drivers license and test. When people, particularly children, died in auto accidents we created laws about seat belt use. When people, particularly children, die from guns, our response should be the same; laws that require registration and tests, safety locks to prevent misfiring.
1
I think that the argument of this young man has a claim to our attention; the problem is not guns it is "people" We should not get rid of guns; rather we should get rid of people (and guns are a very useful tool in accomplishing this goal.)
2
First of all, there is no humane way to butcher a living creature.
Second, you can be a gun owner and support this movement. Everyone should support common sense gun control and the idea that no one with mental health issues and a history of violent behavior should have access to weapons of war.
So many gun enthusiasts wrongly think people are afraid of guns. We get it, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guess what, it's not the guns that we are afraid of, its the people. It's specifically the people who are crazy about guns that are terrifying. Perhaps that's part of the communication problem. Many of the gun obsessed are frankly oblivious. They think we fear guns when it is in fact a lack in faith regarding the competency and sanity of the gun obsessed. The NRA said it best, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
1
If this kid ever loses his gun rights it will be because of one thing - The NRA. The writer sounds reasonable and intelligent. The same cannot be said for the positions the NRA takes.
The NRA's position is to stand with mass murderers when it comes to assault rifles, ineffective background checks, and high capacity magazines. And until just recently, bump stocks like the ones used in Las Vegas.
The massive political power the NRA wields has been continuously abused in order to promote an extreme and dangerous philosophy that there should be, "no gun laws of any kind", for anyone, anywhere, at anytime. And institutional abuse has repercussions.
For example, I believe in capital punishment, in certain circumstances. However, since the legal system has sent hundreds of prisoners to death row who were later found not guilty, I believe we should no longer have that as an option, because we know that innocent people have and will be put to death by the state as a result.
Instead of holding innocent victims, video game designers, and those who simply want to be safe and not get slaughtered en masse, responsible for the excessive gun violence in this country, gun owners should rethink their position, and place the blame where it belongs. - Which is with the people who are directly responsible for creating a social and legal environment which allows these tragedies to occur. And that is the NRA - period.
The vast majority do not oppose hunters and hunting, they oppose the NRA.
1
The problem is guns "and" people. Not all guns and not all people. This is not a simple issue no matter how much pro and anti gun people want to believe it is. Valuing belief over facts is a big part of it too. I'm tired and my hands hurt. The amount of typing it would take to even begin to explain how difficult this all is would be too much. Let me just say that I'm a gun owner and I'm in my 60s. I've never owned a military style assault weapon (rifle or pistol) and never will. I've never carried, never will, have never needed a gun for defense and have never known anyone who did. I live in the country and grew up with guns, but as a kid, no one I ever met from the city owned any kind of gun. Not one. Now the number of people who own guns and the number of guns in the US is absurd. We are drowning in them and drowning in guns that have no purpose in a civilized society. The whole thing is insane. You can't get rid of the guns. Too late. Even if we stop selling them, too late. the fact that every single person in the USA isn't outraged by school shootings and committed to ending them is proof that things won't change and the problem is both guns and people.
I wish other firearms advocates were as reasoned and responsible as Mr. Hanchett. Unfortunately, the open minded debate he proposed won’t happen in legislatures because the gun lobby won’t allow it.
I appreciate this student’s viewpoint, but it seems quite naive. “Trusting” gun sellers to be discerning in who they sell their guns too is all well and good, but do you really think the gun sellers of all the mass shooters knew these boys would cause mass destruction? I doubt it. If they did, according to the author, they wouldn’t have necessarily sold them guns.
Bottom line, the gun is the problem. You say people are the problem. Yes, people are the problem but without the gun there would be just troubled people (who do need help!) and not innocent people killed.
People often blanket young liberals as idealistic and naive to the world - I would say the same about this young author.
This young man makes a cogent argument for having the right to own guns for target practice or hunting, which he seems to enjoy. I have been a gun owner and have used them for just the reasons stated above. He also has every right not to participate in a walkout or to argue his point of view to classmates and others. What I don't agree with is the need to have AR-15s and Bump Stock conversions that turn semi-automatic guns into rapid fire weapons of mayhem! These type weapons are to kill humans. Why would someone think that it is a "sport" to use such weapons and call themselves "sportsmen", when the other half of the "sport" doesn't even know the game is going on!
" ... gun sellers have a responsibility to make their own decisions about whom they want to sell a gun to." Too many sellers are going to sell a gun to anybody with the money to buy it. Weapons with high rate of fire and high bullet capacity have no legitimate civilian use. They are certainly not covered by the 2nd amendment, the same as NFA illegal weapons such as short barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, etc. With thousands of locations selling them, a would be mass murderer can get one regardless of any background checks, age limits, etc. Such "solutions" are merely lame attempts by politicians to say they did "something", while ignoring the main problem: easy availability of such weapons. Doing something about that would put their big time NRA donations at risk: " ... the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998." (Politifact, Oct 2017)
1
A refreshing, honest, and simple expression of 1 teenager's view of firearms in our complicated culture.
In a society where fewer Americans use (or even understand the use of) firearms, this young man speaks for a new minority.
Let us acknowledge that his story is just as valuable as the stories of those who walked out in protest.
The author makes a thoughtful contribution to the gun control debate. The most important point is to be respectful of others’ perspectives. I agree that if we can do this, there can be progress in reducing gun violence in the U.S. I would love to hear intelligent discussion about safety and military-grade weapons. I expect that military officials recommend that these weapons should be handled only by skilled professionals.
Unfortunately our president is not capable of realistic and productive discussions. He thrives in a state of constant conflict and is threatened by ideas different than his own. We will have to wait for executive and legislative turnover to pass meaningful gun control regulations.
There is quite a divide in this country and it's not just pro-gun vs. anti-gun. It's more urban vs. rural. In Ohio urban areas account for 21% of the state's population but 65% of the murders (a rate of 17.9 per 100,000.) Non-urban areas account for 79% of the population but only 35% of the murders (a rate of 2.7 per 100,000.)
On the other hand, gun ownership is much higher in rural areas. So clearly it's not high levels of gun ownership that cause high murder rates. Urban residents have good reason to fear guns (in someone else's hands) while rural residents generally don't need to fear their neighbors with guns.
2
In rural America we are our own police out of necessity.
And the dog thinks that the sun rises because he barks.
Sounds like Dakota is on the right track... looking for discussion and solutions.
After the mass shootings at schools, churches, and concert venues, almost everyone agrees, gun control advocates and opponents alike, that the shooter was the kind of person who should not have been permitted to own the kind of weapon and the type of bullets used.
But we don’t seem able to proactively prevent these people from getting and using such deadly weapons.
Thank you, Dakota, for writing a well-reasoned piece. I agree with much of what you say, but we differ on one major point, that of AR-15 family firearms in civilians hands.
I assure you that I am in no way afraid of firearms, having been a shooter since I was a child. I was trained by my grandfather, my father, my uncles, and by my older cousins. In an odd case of symmetry, it wan on a Vermont farm a few miles from the New Hampshire line.
I have used rifles and shotguns in hunting, but have only had regular use of an AR-15 family firearm during one period in my life, when I carried an M-16 in the military. We made no bones about it, we carried that rifle for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill other human beings. The 5.56mm NATO M855 cartridge used by that rifle is very well suited to that task; it creates a small entry wound and then relies on cavitation to inflict tissue damage that can only be described as horrific before leaving a very large exit wound. This, in fact, makes it a round that isn't really suitable for hunting. The round's high velocity also makes it a risky choice for self-defense, as it can easily penetrate interior walls in a building and hit people in the next room. And of course, it's length, even in the shorter M-4 configuration makes it a bit unwieldy.
Now, given all this, what possible justification can you have for continuing what has become the mass murderer's weapon of choice? Just what makes it worth it?
5
Coming from a rural background myself, I often wish urban folk would better understand guns. We had a gun registry in Canada from 2001 to 2006, and I was always opposed to it on pragmatic grounds. The issue is readily politicized because it appeals to emotion, rather than reason. As I've pointed out to fellow Canadians, the gun registry never did or could prevent another Marc Lepine; it was anodyne legislation that gave people a false sense of security at a horrendous cost.
Nevertheless, I think we both agree on this: a gun is a weapon AND a tool. Gun ownership, however, isn't an expression of liberty, as the many members of the NRA argue. Regarding the A15, I had a Ruger semi automatic 22 rifle on the farm with a 6 shot clip. I certainly had use for it there, but could never justify its use in an urban setting. As you noted, people, not guns, are the essential problem. Consequently, I also strongly advocate gun safety training. Gun ownership, in my estimation, should be contingent upon demonstrating the ability to take apart and put a weapon back together. I learned that as a teen, so why can't adult do likewise?
1
Guns and other weapons such as knives and even axes do cause people to be more violent. The more deadly they are, the stronger their effect on people. Controlled psychological experiments, notably at Yale, showed their influences going back to the 1970's. And yet you and other gun-lovers say its people, not guns that shoot other people. Yes and no. When I was your age I was a hunter in a gun-loving family in a gun-loving state, Idaho. Later I was a Marine, a machine-gunner, who knew the thrill of shooting an automatic weapon. Fortunately for my conscience I never had to shoot anyone. I know now we need powerful weapons to protect our country and our citizens -- but for no other reason. Otherwise they will only do harm.
3
I am sorry you did not feel you could participate in the walk out. But I thank you for taking the time to write this piece. I think your idea to teach gun safety in schools, particularly in districts where hunting is common, is a good one. I also appreciate your mentioning that you took a hunter safety course.
I think there is a wide variety of opinions about guns among those who chose to observe the 17 minutes. My daughter participated in the walk out and she felt that at her school, it was a solemn and mutually respectful event.
I think the appropriateness of a firearm depends on the setting. I am sure you don't take yours to school, church, or out to dinner. And if you lived in a densely populated area, there might be no appropriate setting. For people who live in urban and suburban areas, where you constantly encounter strangers wherever you go, the presence of a gun, other than in a policeman's holster, is a legitimate reason for serious concern. Having my own gun too would not make me feel safer. Not because I have an irrational fear of a tool. But because, in this setting, this tool's only purpose is to threaten or commit murder. I do not wish to go about my life with a constant daily reminder that I may kill or be killed that day. It's no way to live.
1
There may be a reason to have guns in our society but safety is not one of them. People rarely kill people unless they have a gun handy. Today there was a story about a 9 year old killing his 13 year old sister over a video game. Our household did not have guns. When my brother and I fought, no one died.
The problem with a house full of guns is that you have to get it right 24/7 for your entire life. According to statistics, it looks like the chances of dying from your own negligence or mental state is higher than your chance of successfully avoiding death by stranger if you own a gun.
We are not going to be a gun free society but we can at least do better than we are doing now.
2
Nice kid, has some good points about gun safety and background checks. But as a retired police officer I know more about them than he does. I doubt he has been to an autopsy of a person killed by an assault rifle. I don't know if he understands the damage done to internal organs, bones and limbs from a rifle like an AR15. These rifles shoot bullets at almost 3 times the velocity of a handgun like a 9mm. The velocity and the kinetic energy released is why they cause so much damage. Would the Vegas shooter have killed 58 people and wounded over 800, if he had used a handgun, not likely. Handguns are the practical firearm for self defense. I know that there are certain rifles appropriate for hunting certain types of game. Rifles such as the AR15 belong only in the hands of trained military personnel. Ideally compromise legislation should require new purchases of weapons like these to be kept secure at gun ranges. People keep saying mental health is the problem. It isn't, because other advanced nations have mentally ill people just like we do, but they don't have anything close to number mass shootings and active shooter incidents at our kid's schools like we do.
3
I respect your First Amendment right to protest, or to choose not to protest.
AR-15's are killing machines. They were created to kill a maximum number of people in the shortest possible time. They are not hunting rifles. They are not farming tools. They are weapons of war. Their use should be restricted to the military and police. There should be no exceptions for civilian users. There has been enough carnage of innocent, often young lives.
2
Yes, the problem is people, not guns. Without people, guns wouldn't kill anyone. But since we cannot eliminate people, we need to focus on guns.
3
Dear Dakota,
I'm an intellectual and I find my friends who hunt and shoot don't really know all that much about out the World outside of this country or how out government functions.
3
Your classmates protest semi-automatic rifles and not guns in general. You don't need an AR-15 to hunt or for self-defense. It is a tool of war not a tool for hunting. No constitutional right exists to semi-automatic rifles (read Scalia), neither should there be one. A gun that has been designed as an assault weapon belongs in war and law enforcement, but not in the hands of any civilian. Nobody's desire to have fun outweighs anyone's right to life and safety.
1
Many years ago, I moved to a new home. I put the handgun I used for target practice in a locked box and, as an afterthought, tucked the box in the spare-tire well in my car. I stopped to run an errand along the way and, while I was in the store, my car was stolen and the gun along with it. The next 12 hours were terrible. The thought of MY gun being found and used to kill someone, perhaps even a police officer, was nauseating. All the more so as my brother was a cop himself. Fortunately, my car was found 12 hours later -- the thief had taken my gym bag and a few other article, but hadn't found the hidden gun. Plenty of other guns have been stolen, though. An estimated 1.2 MILLION guns were stolen between 2012 and 2015 (per the FBI). No gun owner, no matter HOW careful or well-trained, can guarantee that their weapon won't someday be used to murder another human being or to shoot up a classroom full of children. The more guns, the more gun deaths. Period.
1
Funny how comments are allowed on contributor's viewpoints that oppose NYT editorial positions and not allowed on ones that are aligned. Consistency anyone?
Thanks for your thoughtful piece. What you omitted is what you use an AR-15 for. Why would you or your family want one? What are you shooting with it? Obliterating targets? Totally annihilating animals?
12
No one is trying to take your guns away kid! Well, maybe your AR15 semiautomatic. We and the kids around the country protesting, just want gun safety laws pasted. No one needs to own semiautomatic war weapons to hunt and keep their home safe and guarded.
8
And should a silencer for a gun also be a Second Amendment right...another "accessory" that the NRA would like to make available to their "patriots"
2
You lost all credibility at AR 14 for hunting. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Just because you were raised toting guns, it doesn’t mean it’s right.
14
Great, so, do you know about kids getting killed because AR15's ar so easy to get that any high school kid can get one? Or just about anyone for that matter. Same for semi-auto handguns. Pay money. Get one. Period. That easy availablity is what has led to the highest murder and sucide numbers in the world in the USA. Think about that: Due to the neediness of gun nuts, ANYONE can get a gun that they can use to kill dozens of people in a few minutes.
NO ONE needs these guns for "self defense." That is pure right-wing drivel. Indeed, it is kind of pathetic that all these men (and yes, they are almost all men) claim they are too afraid to go out in the world without carrying around massive firepower that is only useful on a battlefield. Or, if they one day decide they would like to kill a lot of innocent people quickly.
Maybe some day you will grow up and mature and realize the gun nuts are causing the problem by insisting on absolute freedom of easy access to war weapons by ANYONE. Better yet, maybe some day the gun nuts will grow up and mature and realize they are the ones responsible for the carnage. Until then, the killing will go on. Hopefully you will learn something as you grow up.
6
" firearms aren’t the problem — people are."
Nearly a generation ago, Cheryl Wheeler wrote the song, "If It Were Up to Me" after the Jonesboro massacre It exceeds the 1500 character limit, so here is an excerpt.
Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearing
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
...
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.
You can hear the entire song at this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op7agdIFOGY
10
Great submission. I agree. Let’s start with it’s the guns.
We're the NRA and we approved this message.
5
Deer are more fun to watch than shoot.
12
With Republicans, it's the opposite.
1
They know enough.
1
After every shooting incident the Times finds a "good gun person" to quote. Sorry but it's time to stop these excuses and realize we have a real problem with gun ownership in this country. If someone wrote about the good people who drive while drunk would the Times publish that?
6
I don't care if you're from the most remote valley in Alaska, wear animal hides, and subsist on a paleo diet, sonny boy. There is absolutely no need for a civilian to own a semiautomatic firearm. Exclamation mark.
12
hey kid, AR-15? seriously?
6
People are the problem, not guns? We can't even trust the police with pistols. Was every nazi in WW2 mentally ill? Or every terrorist who has ever lived? Most of them were, and are, sane. Human weakness is all too prevalent and -- to put it lightly -- we make mistakes. So why are we allowing the worst mistakes to be permanent? Because a third of us spoiled Americans can't deny ourselves a single luxury. How charmingly childish of this hideous mob we call America.
2
You don't need to know how to drive or fly or shoot guns to know that each one of these activities can be dangerous to the user or those around them. You can enjoy your hunting and shooting practice but you should be trained, licensed and vetted - it makes sense. Those that oppose or don't abide by these kinds of basic rules in a civilized world are wrong and pig headed. Or just plain stupid.
1
Replace the word "guns" in this article with "cocaine" and see if it persuades you to legalize cocaine.
5
AR-15's!!!! WHY!!!!!!
6
You know, kid, I don't mind that you hunt.
But you're not much of a marksman if you need a military-style rifle.
Go get yourself a nice rifle that fires six bullets. You know, the kind with a wooden stock. And then hit skeets or birds or deer or whatever your heart desires.
The other sort of gun is designed to mow down an enemy line. You know, enemies. Like second graders, church-goers, and the like.
13
Please do not say things like that.
A .308 M1 Garand has a wooden stock, and could kill you just as easily as an AR-15.
Mr. Hanchett is using a false equivalency. You don't need to own a gun to know that they are designed and sold to be lethal. No matter a deer of a HS student they are used to kill. Get a grip dude.
6
"firearms aren’t the problem — people are." When did this preposterous meme become a reasonable idea in the U.S.? The author sounds like a nice kid, but he's also a tool. It's time to grow up.
3
It sounds like Dakota is mostly concerned about HIS feelings being hurt by these protests -- that people misunderstand HIM and HIS interests and HIS gun safety practices.
News flash: This isn't about YOU.
Maybe instead of focusing on yourself, Dakota, you should take a few minutes to consider that THOUSANDS of deaths each year in the US are an externality of YOUR beliefs and practices.
Don't ask the rest of us to care about your feelings. Care about innocent people being murdered because of your "misunderstood" hobby.
And NYTimes, shame on you for allowing even a high schooler to parrot the NRA's idiotic mantra, "guns don't hurt people, people do," as if that's some sort of incisive well-thought-out response to our country's >unique< epidemic of widespread mass murder by legal (!!!!) assault weapons. Do you really assume ZERO critical thinking skills among your readers?
10
What did Obama say about scared rural folks clinging to their guns? I remember...
3
Prisons and mental hospitals were DESIGNED for the Dakota Hanchett's of the world. A sickening piece and it's only Monday.
1
Try a different hobby.
4
Sorry, young man, I don't agree with your NRA-inspired thinking.
2
Nah. We don't really need guns around. I don't know why the NYTimes would publish this and why people are so laudatory.
1
The arrogance of gun owners on display again as their awesomeness with guns outweighs the lives of the innocent
4
I'm impressed with how well kids write these days.
My grandfather, who was a farmer, gave me two guns when I was in junior high school, but they weren't for hunting. He wasn't a hunter, nor was I. One was a bolt action military rifle, a Mauser of WW1 technology. It's big and heavy with a steel butt plate for crushing skulls. There is a mount on the barrel for a bayonet to stab people. It's a weapon of war. It was designed to kill people. The kick of the recoil is unpleasant. He was was a veteran of WW1. I don't know what he did during the war. His hearing was damaged because someone fired a rifle near his head so maybe he was in combat. About 16 million people died in that war.
The other was a small pistol, with bullets. Someone had given it to him as collateral for a loan of $10 when he was a mailman in Chicago, when gangsters ruled the city. He used to tell a story of a judge who waited for him as he was delivering mail. The judge would walk with him along his route so the gangsters wouldn't bump him off in the streets. Back then gangsters wouldn't dare risk harming a federal employee.
An uncle, on the other side of the family, gave me a shotgun when I was older. He wasn't and hunter and he knew I wasn't a hunter either.
We're all colonials, our ancestors fought in the Continental Army during the American revolution.
Liberals just don't know American history. They don't teach civics in school anymore.
Liberals are NOT asking to ban all guns. Our Founding Fathers knew muskets, they could never imagined the military assault rifles of today-the injuries of which are devastating.
3
A person dead from a musket is just as dead as someone shot with a 5.56 high velocity bullet. The purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting, but that is a benefit. The purpose is one of defense, for the individual and for the community, the nation. It is one of the checks in our system of checks and balances. A well armed citizenry is a deterrent, just like the nation's nuclear arsenal. There is no point to a second amendment if the the technology is frozen in time when one's enemies progress and develop more deadly weapons.
Liberals are trying to ban a majority of guns, specifically all semi-automatic guns. Bolt action guns are WW1 era technology. There is no second amendment protection, no deterrence, when everyone else has semiautomatic and automatic weapons. The AR15 is a deliberate compromise. It's a civilian weapon.
If you want to stop mass murders make everyone join the NRA. No mass murderers were NRA members. And get the military recruiters out of the schools and cease requiring that schools provide personal information on all of their students to the Pentagon. Over one third of our mass murderers had been in the military or were significantly influenced by it. The military inspires many more mass murders than the NRA ever did.
This is plain old dumb.
My Texas dad was in the Marines as a young man.
The number of times we saw his service pistol = ZERO.
Maybe you do not know American history but that isnt everyone else- good grief.
What kind of smarmy comments are these. Here we are in a situation where folks have unrestricted (almost) access to weapons that have no use or than mass, uncontrolled killing of people, and we are telling this kid how grateful we are that he is so thoughtful and that he saw no need to join with his classmates in a a rebuke of laws that provide morons excessive and largely unrestrictive access and use of war related instruments. Give me a break. WAKE UP folks. I am a veteran who is expert qualified in these weapons and see absolutely no reason for the common rank and file to have lately unrestricted access and use them.
5
Would it take all of your classmates being armed, and all pointing their weapons at you, to change your mind?
2
'People who use guns in mass shootings are using those guns to seek help...the people who do these things....were let down by the adults around them'.
Yes, I suppose you're right. Adolf Hitler's murder of millions was really an unrequited cry for help. And poor Hitler was also let down by the adults around him - although he as well as many of the mass murderers in our midst are adults as well. Dakota: you have no idea what you're talking about.
1
Dear Dakota,
Do you believe in democracy and will agree to the majority decision to ban and outlaw guns?
If think; you can raise your AR-15 against the will of majority then you you know where your true heart lies.
When's the last time you went hunting for bison with an AR-15? Try again bubba
3
As if American school children are educated in sex...
5
"The gun seller should use common sense during that time to determine whether the buyer is in the right state of mind"
How on earth is a gun seller going to determine if a gun buyer is in their right state of mind? Maybe all gun sellers need a psychiatric degree?? Please explain.
"if we can teach students about sex and about drug and alcohol abuse, why can’t we teach them about firearm safety? If we can be shown pictures of penises and vaginas, why can’t we have a couple of police officers come in and show us an unloaded gun "
In response to this bit of logic....penises and vaginas do not kill people!
Furthermore, regarding you passion for hunting, do you really need an AR15 to kill a deer? Where's the "fun" in that? And I am glad you are not marching with your fellow teenagers. This shows me that you did not suffer the death of a close friend or student colleague and that you yourself was never threatened with an AR15. Therefore it is easy for you to "stick to your guns".
2
It's getting old.
1
And teenagers, and adults for that matter, used to think (and some still do) that it's "cool" to smoke cigarettes. Firing an AR-15 is not in any way shape or form cool, not even when you're on the battlefield, which is what they were designed for: to be used in war. Weapons of war have no place in the hands of civilians, not you or any other teenager or adult. War is hell.
5
"Some kids at school don't understand why I hunt"
"... But even if people try to be nice, they don't really want to debate it"
"if we get shown pictures of penises and vaginas, why can't we have a couple..."
because most people in america cannot remotely make the claims you do, justifying gun ownership. their neighbors cannot either, and for these people, guns are not necessary, or useful.
i sympathize with you, and your article is well-written for a junior in high school. but much of your writing points to your unawareness of how the majority of america is nowadays - nothing close to hunter-gatherer, or living in rural areas where gun ownership is necessary.
kudos for presenting your case in a clear way, and sharing your perspective. your tone gives me hope that America can reach a compromise, soon.
2
My goodness, the fact that the writer equates firearms to penises and vaginas kind of encapsulates everything that is bonkers with our culture.
11
Everyone is born with a penis or a vagina.
No one is born holding a gun.
That's why kids don't need to learn about them in school.
12
Not sure that sex ed ("If we can be shown pictures of penises and vaginas, ...") and 'gun education' should occupy the same space and status in high schools.
I mean, one typically (tho not always, I know) comes into the world with one or another of these anatomical features.
Conversely, one doesn't naturally drop from the womb already holstered with a firearm.
So, there's that.
It's always challenging to be a teenager, but now? Wow. I don't envy these young people at all.
4
Dakota, I appreciate your thoughtful essay and the Times for publishing it. I have never owned a gun. But I appreciate that many Americans enjoy hunting and recreational shooting and I would not want to deprive them of that right. However many people, and most experts, agree that gun violence is a public health crisis and the U.S. needs more sensible regulation of firearms. There are probably many fixes that the majority of Americans would agree on if the issue were not so politicized by corporate interest groups exclusively focused on profits and politicians who are beholden to them. Perhaps now is the moment that thoughtful people can come together to agree on the necessary changes.
7
You don't need to know much about guns to know that an AR-15 does not belong in the hands of civilians. What we do know is that a weapon of war slaughtered the students in Parkland; isn't that enough to act on?
12
Well, obviously this young man is right. Guns don't kill anyone by themselves. Anyone wh gest shot is shot because someone pulls a trigger. And, again, he is right in saying that for many of the "school shooters" -only in the US can this become a common term, surely- had shown signs of being troubled prior to the murderous spree.
However, these two things being the case, shouldn't the responsible gun owners then be at the forefront of any effort to ensure that the "troubled" or the "violence prone" find it very difficult indeed to obtain firearms and ammunition?
(On a slightly different note, what possible justification can there be for a private citizen to own an AR-15 type weapon???)
7
You only have to compare statistics of gun deaths in developed countries. We look bad, very bad. School shootings are not a good symptom.
7
I hope another teenager can respond to this opinion from this teenager. Using this logic drugs aren’t bad just the user and the adults in close proximity who have let the user down.
5
The Times used to have a weekly gun report of some of the gun events around the country.
My recollection is the mother of the Sandy Hill mass murderer was into gun safety, and working with her son on target shooting responsibly.
So, we have danced around the issue forever. there are too many guns on the street in America. It is not video games, it is not mental illness, it is not girls dumping boys, or racism. Yes, they may influence the final outcome, but we have too many guns, and we have had too many for too long.
9
So if we succeed in removing guns from our citizenry who will be left in possession of firearms? Do we think the state is morally superior and less dangerous then its citizens? What does history show? Be careful what we wish for....
1
Who is calling for the removal of all guns? The articles I see are for common sense gun laws.
1
Anthony, no one is talking about taking away the right of responsible adults to own guns. When you make comments like that, all rational discussions get shut down.
The writer is probably correct in suggesting that many of his peers really don't know much about guns.
Too many of his peers, however, are well acquainted with the just how devastating guns can be if such guns should find themselves in the grasp of an angry person who intends to do harm.
Is that not all they really need to know about guns?
8
This fellow, much like the former IRA spokesperson Charles Heston, shows a rifle in his hands to visually convey his support for gun ownership when the crux of the matter is not the ownership of the rifle he is holding but of the assault weapons he is entitled to own.
3
Dakota.
The country needs more independent thinking people, like you, who don't buy the propaganda produced by both the Left and Right. It is particularly hard when you hold a viewpoint different from your friends and teachers (and as you can see from these responses, many readers of the NY Times).
Keep working hard at school and best of luck in becoming a firefighter.
1
These young people with their thoughtful responses have given me hope for the future. I too grew up around people who hunted and be assured that as children we were warned never to point a gun at anyone and taught how to use guns safely. Unfortunately many are not taught this and their adults leave loaded guns around where a child can get access. I agree that we need gun control to keep guns out of the hands of felons and others who are not able to be responsible. Know that anyone can go to a gun show and just buy a gun in some states - no background check. A good policy regulating guns and teaching safety procedure will go a long way to reducing if not totally eliminating these terrible episodes of mass shootings at schools. Again, thanks to the young people who are stepping up to the plate and voicing their ideas Maybe some of the adults in positions of power will start listening or will it take one of their own being killed to make them pay attention.