It's better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have one. Wouldn't you agree?
Before you go on reading this, I ask that you consider this situation: You have a very good friend, someone whom you respect, in judgment, perceptions and attitudes. This person is pretty easy going but you just know somehow that if there was a bad situation developing that he would be the one to get in front of it and put it to an end.…
Article comments
26 - SHARK
Lord knows we need some lone voice in America with the balls to stand up and say that gun ownership is A-Okay. I mean -- with some 200 MILLION guns in private hands -- and some 280 million people, there's a good chance that a few toddlers are going around unarmed.
Man, it's hell to be in a persecuted minority, so thanks for speaking out on this controversial subject. I needed to know I'm not alone!
=========
PS:
I've needed a Stinger missle.
...twice in the last few months!
Can't buy 'em here, tho.
[mutters] ...liberal bastards.
=======
27 - SHARK
Gotta run.
I'm in the middle of attaching a pearl handle to my Rottweiler's ass.
28 - Peter J
I can get you such a deal if you'll take 1/2 a doz. and a Huey
29 - Baronius
Peter, don't forget about the importance of education for minors and adults who don't carry a gun.
A few minutes at the shooting range could save your child's life. You never know which neighbour has a gun at home, or whether he practices basic gun safety. Kids get into things, especially if they know they shouldn't. Simple safety lessons are available - they should be mandatory. And the sound and the recoil of a weapon can be enough to convince a child that firearms are serious. Of course, adults can benefit from safety lessons as well as from learning their way around a weapon.
30 - Peter J
Baronius,
You get the gold star on your forehead,, no, don't worry, it's not a target.
I asked one simple question:
"Do You Know If Your Friends Are Armed And Would It Matter?"
Another true story: an employee, 17 yr old kid, doesnt show for work one Fri morning. He comes rushing in at about 11: am and wants his check. No, I say, I'll have it for you at the end of the day. "please, I've gotta go, I'm in big trouble" Curious as I am , "O yea,? what kind of trouble?"
"I just killed a kid" This from someone like your own son, not some punk. "slow down, what are you talking about?" "We were hangin at this guys house and we were messin with this gun, a 38, and I pointed it at him and he said, 'go ahead, shoot'. I don't know what happened, it just went off." Jeeziz Christ, when? "just now". where? "at the apartments up the street, can I just have my check?" Afraid not., you just left him, is he still alive? "I don't know, we just ran."
What the fuck is wrong with you, He may still be alive, where did you shoot him? "In the head, there was blood and stuff everywhere".
All of my blood drained to my feet as I dialed 911,he may still be alive, reported it anonymously and then called a friend whose a lawyer to help him turn himself in.
Truth.
If that kid had had just one afternoon with me he would have never, ever aimed that gun. There would be a young man alive today, about 40 yrs old now, probably with a wife and kids, but just because someone never had training, he is not. now don't go and tell me something dumb, the obvious answer from unrealistic people or I'll say something equally stupid such as "if only that drunk didn't get in that car", or "if only that semi driver had proper driver training"
If only Santa really had a reindeer like Rudolph.
I taught my daughter at 12 yrs old to fire a 38 and showed her exactly what happens to a melon when shot with hollow points from 10 ft.
My daughter is now 31, lives on her own and keeps that same 38 in her nightstand. We go to the range on many occassions and she has turned out to be the safest handler I know and a much better shot than I. I'll be damned if I ever have to say "if only".
31 - Christopher Rose
Peter J: Isn't your pro-gun stance blinding you to the fact that this event wouldn't have happened if your employee's friend didn't have a gun? Thanks for the evidence in support of disarming America.
A second thought: If I was an American criminal and knew that so many civilian people were armed, I'd simply get more and bigger weapons and start using them sooner and more aggressively. It's called evolution - or the arms race...
32 - SFC SKI
Christopher, even with the laws have we can't keep drugs out of people's hands, or alcohol away from minors, or even make everyone obey speed limits, why do you think disarming people would stop gun crime? In Peter's example, it's never mentioned if the gun is legal or not, but one practical "lesson learned" that leaps to the fore is thatif the kid had n=known the first rule of gun safety; "Always treat a weapon as if it was loaded", he would not have shot anyone with the gun, legal or not.
Peter's point is that people have the right to self defense, and firearms ownership fall under that, but that those who have a firearm should be responsible. The reason we have laws against misuse of firearms is hopefully get people to consider the consequences of neglect, or of violent use of firearms. Laws do not prevent crime in and of themselves, laws are only deterrents, and as a guideline for punishment when the laws are disregarded.
I don't own a firearm of any sort, but I probably will when my lifestyle permits it. I enjoy target shooting, and think it is a useful skill.
33 - MAOZ
Peter, excellent article!
BTW, you've heard the expression "An armed society is a polite society"? I guess Israel proves that's not necessarily true.
34 - Christopher Rose
SFC SKI: I can't see any connection or correlation between drink, drug and driving laws and the proliferation of weapons in the USA so that's all moot.
My point, and it's pretty irrefutable is that, in the situation Peter J described, without the presence of a gun it couldn't have happened. Equally, it seems pretty simple that with a lot less weapons around, they'd be used less.
People aren't machines and don't always act according to the dictates of reason or common sense so I find the education and training argument somewhat unpersuasive.
When people go on about the right to self defense, my first instinctive reaction is, defense against what? For most people fortunate enough to enjoy life in a mature or stable democracy, there seems precious little to defend oneself against.
Armed criminals, you may suggest, but I would counter by saying that the only thing preventing a systematic and practical campaign of disarming criminals is the lack of political will and/or the lobbying power of the arms industry.
35 - Christopher Rose
MAOZ: There's a lot of countries you could add to that list!
36 - Martin Lav
Peter J.:
"Why do people like you have to be insulting to be dis-agreeable? Do ya feel better now?"
"When I look around and see the angry motorists, the angry inner city kids and even the tempers of people in the last election I wonder how we got to this in the 21st century.
I think about the reality of carrying the weapon and wonder why I've encountered these situations and so many others have not. Am I out looking for things to happen?"
Come on Peter, you see all this ugliness in the world and you're scared, so you feel better carrying a gun. That in itself creates the ugliness. Don't you see that?
37 - SFC SKI
Christopher, I see by your comments above that you and I have a worldview that goes far beyond, IMO, you living in Britain, if I remember correctly, and me being from various states in America, as well as having resided outside the US.
The point of contention between us might be summed up here, "without the presence of a gun it couldn't have happened." True, but the gun was there, and the person who fired it had no idea how to use it. IN this same way, drugs are illegal, if they weren't there, people would not use them, yet people still manage to find illegal drugs and use them.
As for the violent use of firearms, violent people find all sorts of ways to practice violence, guns are just another tool. Also, violence is not bred from poverty or lack of opportunity, otherwise the poor would never stop rioting and the rich would never kill anyone. Violence is a part of human nature that fortunately most of us keep under control.
You say you are unpersuaded as to the benefits of education and training; I'll grant you that you can't make people smart or responsible, but you can attempt to do so, and you can make it clear that it is in their best interests to be responsible, and that is about as much you can do.
As for the deterrence of violent crime by being armed, first off, even in Peter J.'s examples, he rarely had to even draw the firearm, but each time he had to, it was an appropritate time to do so. Europe has plenty of violent crime perpetrated against unarmed citizens, the only difference is, the Europeans can only be more scared unless the government protects them. Obviously, the government can't be everywhere at once.
Again, I have lived all over the US, but I have never owned a firearm, even though my profession makes firearms use almost routine. Not all Americans feel the need to own a firearm, at the same time, if you live or work in a bad neighborhood, being armed is not a bad idea.
I have been to England, but I can't claim any insight or opinion as to why the British are so unlike the Americans in regards to violence and gun ownership. For that matter, what are the gun laws in Australia like?
38 - Clavos
CR says:
Peter J: Isn't your pro-gun stance blinding you to the fact that this event wouldn't have happened if your employee's friend didn't have a gun? Thanks for the evidence in support of disarming America.
That argument assumes that outlawing guns will do away with them, which IMO, is a false assumption.
Americans of all backgrounds and ages continually break all the laws we already have, why would a law banning guns be observed more than the drug laws, for example?
You say:
SFC SKI: I can't see any connection or correlation between drink, drug and driving laws and the proliferation of weapons in the USA so that's all moot.
Your saying the point is moot doesn't make it so. Explain why you think Americans are more likely to obey a gun ban law than those others Ski mentioned?
And:
Armed criminals, you may suggest, but I would counter by saying that the only thing preventing a systematic and practical campaign of disarming criminals is the lack of political will and/or the lobbying power of the arms industry.
Point taken. But let's assume for the moment that the political will is found and the gun lobby is neutralized. Why do you think that people who are not afraid of breaking laws against robbery, assault or murder are going to be intimidated by a gun ban? Doesn't make sense. And a "systematic" plan to identify gun owners and seize their guns would likely be uncostitutional.
Finally, we already have a number of laws on the books which, if enforced, would go a long way toward achieving both control ownership of guns and reducing the incidence of accidental gun mishaps at least. These laws are erratically enforced at best.
A better and more realistic approach to reducing gun violence would be better enforcement of existing laws.
And, unlike a gun ban, wouldn't be unconstitutional.
39 - Christopher Rose
But there's a positive experience to using drugs and drinking alcohol. I've never been seriously scared about being shot anywhere in Europe, ever. The same can't be said of the USA and I've only spent a total of a few months there, not decades as here.
For the record, I'm an Englishman living in Spain; I find the island life a little provincial and too self-obsessed for me. And rainy. And cold. And dark!
40 - Martin Lav
"But there's a positive experience to using drugs and drinking alcohol."
Tell that to millions of people effected by drug and alcohol abuse.
41 - Christopher Rose
The fact that drug or alcohol abuse exists doesn't negate my statement, Mr Lav; there is a positive experience to be had. And the Editor part of me says you mean "affected"... ;-)
42 - Martin Lav
No Mr. editor I think you mean effect if that's what you're after.....
43 - Anon
The issue is simple. If a criminal wants to kill someone with a gun, s/he will find a gun and do the deed. Last time I checked, in countries like England where handguns are more or less banned people still get shot with handguns by criminals. The laws only effect the law-abiding.
What is the probability that your home will catch on fire? Do you own a fire extinguisher? Why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will protect you?
44 - Lumpy
What part of the US were you in where u thought u were in danger of being shot? Compton? Inner city Detroit?
There are parts of any big city anywhere in the world which are dangerous regardless of the level of gun control.
The simple fact is that the more widespread guns are the lower the incidence of crime. The preice paid forthat is a small increase in gun accidents which are so rare they hardly even register compared to other causes of death.
45 - Harry Schell
Christopher,
I suggest that if you think gun bans will reduce or prevent violent crime, Google "Joyce Lee Malcom and Mad Dogs and Englishmen"
You will get a succint summary of the incredible mess in the UK due to gun bans, self-defense bans and a judicial activism that incarcerates people if they "pose a menace to burglars".
In the US, if your idea works, Washington DC should be a paradise from criminality, especailly the violent kind. Have they called off the "police emergency" declared months ago due to a spiraling murder rate?
Cultural factors definitely mitigate or promote violent crime. The average Swiss male keeps his army rifle and a basic load of ammo in his home, and recreational shooting is a regular pastime for many. Gun oriented violence is very low, in fact all violent crime is very low.
Mexico is on the flip side. Many impediments for ordinary people to own guns, lots of gun violence.
The key issue is the evil within people, and what that evil will allow them to do. The tool has virtually nothing to do with it.
I suggest you also look into the work by Gary Kleck and John Lott. Peer-reviewed studies with hard data available to anyone. Armed citizens who undertake the right to own and the obligations imposed make life safer, in the net result, for all in the US.
46 - SHARK
LUMPY: :"The simple fact is that the more widespread guns are the lower the incidence of crime."
-- Which means Baghdad is currently the safest city in the world.
I love logic!
======
Gotta run; I'm performing an abortion while smoking a joint and cleaning my 9mm.
47 - John
Anyone who thinks that, in general, British police aren't armed is living in cloud cuckoo land. Maybe the bobby on the street (there for P.R. purposes) isn't armed, but many, if not most, police cars have gunsafes in their trunk, and many officers on special duty have them on their person.
The reason: In a country where guns are totally illegal, they are commonly available on the black market and even Uzis are used from time to time for driveby shootings.
48 - Josh
Which means Baghdad is currently the safest city in the world
What brilliant sarcasm. Hmmm. . . now for some real logic. Bagdad is a war zone. We sent our troops over there with the intent to kill. Baghdad is unsafe because there is a war going on.
We're talking about normal cities. Check the statistics. What Lumpy said is true.
49 - The camel trader
#26. How many Stinger Missle's you want to buy amigo? We give you discount you infidel pig.
50 - Dave Nalle
Gotta run; I'm performing an abortion while smoking a joint and cleaning my 9mm.
Damn, Shark. Sounds like you're ready to join my version of the GOP.
Dave
51 - STM
Most of my friends have two arms, although another only has one and a half from a car smash. Another has two arms, but three and a half fingers missing on one hand from when they got on the piss at a barbecue and tried to chop some more wood.
Does that count?
52 - STM
Christopher Rose said: "Yes, British Army, 2 years, didn't see active service, didn't like it, too many orders for this little rebel!"
They marched him up to the top of the hill, then they marched him down again.
And when he was up he was up.
And when he was down he was down.
And when he was only half way up,
he was neither up nor down.
(Apologies to The Grand Old Duke of York and rugby club songbooks everywhere. Cricket starts on Thursday in Brisbane old boy, first Test at the 'Gabba ... as I'm sure you're well aware. Your mob are toast.)
53 - Mohjho
The Constitution seems pretty clear, if you want to make laws against guns, change the constitution.
Good luck with that.