Gun ownership

In the comments to Mike's post, Judson accuses me of being a clueless suburbanite. Yes, I now live in an almost crime free neighborhood. And no, I would not choose to move to Mike's neighborhood, or to Anacostia in DC. But I have lived in bad neighborhoods. When I lived in Columbus, there were gun fights in the alley behind my house. A sixteen year old was killed in a drive-by at the stop and rob on the corner half a block from my front door while I lived there. And when I lived there, I had a gun. I would have recommended that everyone in that neighborhood get a gun. But personal experience is not the only justification for having an opinion, or why bother to have a civilization?

Relaxing gun restrictions will not have any effect on how many guns are in the hands of criminals. Criminals, being criminals, do not care about gun laws. Law abiding citizens, being law abiding, do. When you relax the laws, you allow the good people to own guns. In Virginia, no one has ever had a Concealed Carry permit revoked for using their weapon inappropriately. In Florida, out of thousands of permits, I believe two have been revoked - and one was revoked because the permit holder committed a non-violent felony, and had his permit pulled. Law abiding citizens do not shoot people just because they have guns. If they did, we would all be dead, because half the households in this country have guns. 

American society is not one of the most violent in the world - we don't even make the top ten in the industrialized world. (Study by University of Leiden, in the Netherlands.) England, at the top of the list, has a violent crime rate that has skyrocketed over the last decade. Which, coincidentally, is how long they've had a total ban on gun ownership. Then, think of the third world - Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone, and the like. We are completely non-violent in comparison. (Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Everyone there is legally required to own not just a gun, but assault rifles.) 

I do not approve of violence. I think it is a terrible thing, as any sane man would. Of course it is the last resort. But the purpose of putting guns in the hands of citizens is to deter violence from criminals with guns. Arming citizens would do nothing to increase violence - they have no desire to commit crimes. I have two guns, but I am not about to go out shooting someone because of the evil influence of my guns. Only if they came into my home, or threatened my family, would I even consider using them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect people. Mostly, they clean up the mess after a crime has been committed. I don't want to wait for them. While a gun does not offer perfect safety, it certainly increases my chances. And it certainly increases the chances for Mrs. Buckethead. 

It is our responsibility, as citizens, to create a safe society. And if we aren't armed, the gangbangers and thugs aren't going to listen to the sweet voice of reason.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 3

§ 3 Comments

2

I was thinking of having "reason" engraved on my handgun, a la Snow Crash. I was thinking a nice, elegant, italic typeface would do the trick.

3

It also makes a great Sussex Puritan name (circa 1620. I read too much)!

Hmm...

...and this is our daughter, Sweet Light Of Reason Two-Cents. Isn't she cute?

Awwww...

I love it.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]