April 13, 2009
-
Words From The Wise : Gun Control
A lion was very much in love with a woodsman’s daughter. The fair maid referred him to her father and the lion applied for the girl. The father replied: “Your teeth are too long.” So the lion went to a dentist and had them extracted. Returning, he asked for his bride. “No,” said the woodsman, “your claws are too long.” Going back to the dentist he had them drawn. Then he returned to claim his bride, and the woodsman, seeing that he was unarmed, beat out his brains.
May it not be so with me, if I give up all that is asked?
- President Abraham Lincoln
To give up one’s constitutionally given right to the ownership of weapons would not only fail to lower crime, but would in fact encourage violence against the people, both by the people and their government.
Weapons – handguns, rifles, semi- and fully-automatic guns – provide our most primitive, but also our most effective, defense. 95% of all 911 calls are responded to and dealt with by police after the crime has occurred. The police alone cannot be relied upon for prevention of crime. In 1855, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local police had no duty to protect any particular person (South vs Maryland, 59 U.S. [How.] 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 [856]).
Are you willing to give up your personal defense (of personal weapons, ie. individually owned pistols and rifles) and rely solely on being that 5% whom the police force are able to protect?
M
EDIT: The date on the Supreme Court ruling has been corrected
EDIT 2: Please REC if you agree!
Comments (37)
I wouldn’t give up personal defense, but where is the line drawn between what is personal defense and what isn’t?
Some people might say that owning nuclear weapons would be “personal defense” from other countries that might attack them or some such thing.
For me, this entire issue is extremely complicated.
@SerenaDante - Personal defense, basically referring to the pistols or rifles kept by individuals
I agree though, its a complex issue, and I’m hoping for input from several people.
M
i generally don’t have an issue with pistols/shotguns/rifles besides the fact they fall into criminal hands since theyre so many of them.
my problem is semi-autos and assault rifles being “protection”
First, In all honesty, I would never give up ownership of any firearm I may possess.
Second, on the issue on what is personal defense and what isn’t on a small scale – Person v. Person, A firearm is highly effective weapon that hardly lands in the hands of a criminal, unless of course the criminal broke into your home when you are not there. Regardless where you half-ass store your firearm, a criminal, who broke into your home while you are away, will most likely find it and take it. On a large scale, best defense against nuclear threat is a deterrent… “we have what you have, but it may be more in numbers, size, or power.” That is why we have nuclear weapons, simply to show forth we have exactly what other superpowers have and “if it comes down to it, do you want a nuclear winter or are you ready for a nuclear winter?”
Third, Semi-autos are your typical firearm, any firearm does not require a bolt or a slide to be operated by hand for reloading purposes and it shoots a round after a round when the trigger consecutively squeezed. Assault rifle is just another name for a semi-auto rifle with or without the capability of switching from semi to burst to full auto that shoots a hunting caliber. A M-16 uses a .223 Remington, which is a cheap deer hunting cartridge. My bolt action rifle I use when I go to deer hunting is a slightly larger caliber than the M-16, the caliber shot from my rifle is a .243 Winchester.
With everything said, I prefer a shotgun as first line of defense at home. Second would be a pistol and third would be my rifle, whatever it may be.
That’s why the US are the safest place in the world??? wait….. no! We don’t have this kind of problem (a man who enters a school/church/store and kills everyone) in France.
You cannot use a gun if you don’t own one. that’s almost too simple…
I don’t have a gun and I would NEVER want have a machine of death at home.
I really like that story at the beginning. Such a good analogy!
It will take a lot of work for anyone to make me give up our guns!
@nomdeinternet - In general, they aren’t. However, in the case of a government revolution, wouldn’t you want the same equipment they posess? America was founded upon revolution against what they perceived to be a corrupt government. Writers like Thomas Paine insisted that we not only have a right as Americans to over-throw our government if it becomes corrupt, but a duty. I’m not one of those ‘the government is out to get me’ types, but that is the basis for ‘why to keep fully automatic’ arguement.
@Viktor_schimdt - LOL I know C I know.
@Mercredi@lovelyish - Hmm. Ever heard of the Black Market? People who want guns CAN and WILL get guns. Law abiding cizitens on the other hand have to go through the registration and legalities of gun ownership. I would never want to live in a country where law-abiding citizens are barred from all gun ownership; then only the ones who accuire guns illegally would posess them. That’s just me though. I do appreciate your input!
@der_lila_Stern - I know! I read that while researching and felt I had to share it. I agree with you, too; our weapons arent going anywhere.
M
@sonnigenmai - i think it would be kind of naive to think if there was another revolution that the citizens could do much against the govt. if the army/usaf/marines/navy were behind the govt., so those types of weapons are silly in that regards to me.
@nomdeinternet - I disagree. In a war where soldiers are killing their own people, the people stand a much greater chance. At the same time, I lean with you on not needed fully-automatic weapons, but I am trying to give you the arguement.
M
Brava. I have done very similar posts, but this one was great. I would ask permission to re-post this on my own site, including a link to your site, of course.
gun control is a logic issue. the people that cause problems with guns are criminals anyway. Do you think that putting more laws in place will stop them from owning them? The only people who lose guns from gun control laws are law abiding citizens. What sense does that make?
Looks like you don’t need my help here. But let me just say I agree with your point
@sonnigenmai - I live in this kind of country. No one has a gun and the black market is not that big in France. I think it’s the big difference btwn europe and US.
You are affraid of guns because people own guns. So you have to have a gun to protect yourself from other people who have guns…
It’s probably very easy to get a gun in US but here… it’s different. I don’t want a gun, I don’t want to go in a country where everybody can have a gun and shoot me if he’s angry.
Parisian people can be very angry that would be soooooooo dangerous.
Anyway, you can kill someone with your bare hands if you really want to and there’s no legislation against hands (lol)
It’s very interesting. I used to study american civilization at university (Paris Sorbonne) and the “issue of guns in America” was one of my teacher’s favorite subjects. (with immigration)
I was looking for the number of death by guns in France but I cannot find any “reliable” source… sorry. (Michael Moore does NOT cout as a reliable source to me)
EDIT: wow it took me so much time to answer? I’m sorry english is not my language..
@Mercredi@lovelyish - I would be very interested if you did some research and formed a post of your own, on the French gun control. I strongly disagree with you, but there are some principle difference between France and America.
@lonelywanderer2 - If you paraphrased, or quoted the entire thing, I wouldn’t mind a bit. I’m glad you enjoyed it, and I hope people see the logic behind your arguements.
@jeffgodofbiskuts - EXACTLY!
@trunthepaige - Thank you very much
M
@sonnigenmai - I don’t really have time these days (exams are coming) but I’ll do it after. (I should be working now…)
You know the “weird thing” is that even if I disagree with some of your points I understand you. I’ve never seen a gun in my entire life, and it seems so far away from me…. Maybe/Probably if I was born in a country where everyone can have one I would think that way… I think too much right?
It’s really difficult to find numbers because it’s not a real issue here. thanks for the answers!
if there wasn’t a problem
Give everyone guns in america, truly making the stereotype feared about americans by the japanese a reality, and watch gun deaths plummet.
If you wanna kill someone, a knife or even a fork can help, so why having gun ? A fork is not really expansive compared to a gun ! (joke but not that much). May be one day, you’ll have pit bulls to protect you against people with winchesters, and then baboons to protect you from pit bulls and then lions to protect you from baboons … I think that the problem is fear. The day American people will stop to fear everybody (in their own country and in the world either) everything will be better. I am happy to know that some states have forbidden guns. How can we live in peace when people have gun under their pillows ?
@nomdeinternet - I disagree with your assessment of the tactical capabilities of a civilian militia. The government has to concern itself with collateral damage, foreign politics and it’s world image. If they destroy too much of the infrastructure, they harm themselves. It would also be quite easy for civilian forces to seize and destroy national monuments and assets.
Besides, how many soldiers in the United States military do you really think would be willing to kill American civilians? One would hope that number would be low.
I would rather have mine and never need it than give it up for the illusion of safety. People who claim that legalized guns perpetuate their use in violent crimes are ignoring the fact that crimes involving guns still happen in many countries where they are not legal. The UK is a perfect example of this, in which the rate of gun related crimes has increased steadily for years. This is irrefutable proof that gun laws do not stop gun crimes.
@Mercredi@lovelyish - This is also true of France. In fact, the interpol statistics for 2008 show the violent crime rate (per 100,000) nearly equal to that of the United States.
( I apologize that I am unable to cite this source, I walked to my local library and found reference materials there… but I’m sure if anyone has the patience, the material is available online. Anyone willing to debate me on this can easily find it.)
I would also like to note that more than half of the murders that take place in the US are not crimes involving firearms. So to insinuate that more guns=more crime is an obvious fallacy.
On a personal note, I would like to say that I have no intention of giving up my gun, regardless of what laws any government decides to pass. If they want it, they can come and take it from me and pry it from my dead hands; if they’re able.
@ElliottStrange - Amen. In addition to your statistics, and I CAN pull up the source if desired, more children die from BIKING accidents each year than firearms. If you want more examples in Europe, look at the influx of crime in England since ‘gun control’. In comparison, look at Switzerland, which has very little gun restrictions, and one of the lowest crime rates.
M
@sonnigenmai - Well, I don’t care enough to make anyone research it, I know personally that it is true… I’ll only go to the trouble if someone disputes it.
@SerenaDante - I don’t know that the courts would ever allow someone to own Weapons of Mass Destruction.
@SilentSeekr - I realize that. However, where is the line drawn between what is acceptable to own and what is “too much”?
Talk about taking away our rights.
@SerenaDante - If you have a private collection of guns suitable to equipping a small army then you have a problem. There are discretions allowed by the courts to local legislatures and law enforcement authorities.
@SilentSeekr - What if I have a few automatic weapons? That’s clearly not enough to equip a small army.
@SerenaDante - It’s all debatable. How about you? Should people own weapons?
Here’s the fact, it’s a basic right. It’s in our Bill of Rights. Take one right away and suddenly you can take them all.
Regardless of how anyone feels about an actual gun and if it should be owned, it’s a basic right for law-abiding citizens to own one. Period.
That pretty much ends the argument. Great post!
@SilentSeekr - I answered that in my first post. This whole issue, to me, is extremely complicated. I don’t have an answer.
Ooh-rah,
Saw a comment to a post of yours elsewhere, thought I’d check your site out. It was all and more than I expected. This is a good Post! And I’d never be without my Babies!
Living in the Great State of New Mexico, we have a town Reserve, New Mexico where if you are over eighteen and Do Not carry a weapon(hand gun) You can be fined!
My kind of Town! Come visit, but come armed!
Ben
I’d like to know on average how many people a year actually in the USA effectively use a weapon as a defense against some personal crime against them.
And I’d also like to know on average how many guns are used to commit a crime.
My suspicion is that the first number pales horribly in comparison to the latter.
@ItsWhatEyeKnow -
The first group of guns are probably registered, the second usually are not.You got to remember that if someone thinks you might be armed they will probably not try to attack, rob, mug, kill,you. It’s then called a deterrent. Now if you don’t agree with that argument, remember that Our President said that His stimulus package would save jobs, (Deter Job Loss) these numbers can’t be counted but we know that they exist.
Try this announce with placards that you don’t have any guns or weapons of any kind to protect yourself, and I’ll do the opposite and we can see who gets broken into first?
It sounds childish I know, But were talking about criminals here. Don’t be naive, be safe. I was raised with guns and the way we learned respect for fire arms was to know they were loaded, and how to use them properly. It is my Right! Think of a Right you’d fight for, maybe more than one, why not all of them? Then serve our country for four to thirty years, and tell me what you’d defend with your life, who’d you defend?
When people in Detroit finally got the right to carry arms again(Suspended by a Federal Judge, found Unconstitutional), the rate of violent crime went down. From 30% to 12%. Go figure.
@SerenaDante - It is unlawful for anyone to own or operate Automatic weapons of any kind in the USA, unless you are FBI, ATF, military or other Federal law enforcement.
It’s called Defining Your Rights, don’t you just love it?
Oh! I forgot another group who use Automatic weapons, Criminals. How do they get such weapons?
@Knight_of_Renown - Reading the first comment I left on this entry might be helpful to you…
@Knight_of_Renown -
Do most gun owners wear or prominently display signs announcing the fact that they own a gun?
I’m a pretty social person. I’ve been to homes owned by people of all walks of life and I’ve yet to see on at anyone’s front door or otherwise displayed on their home a sign stating that a gun was within. I’ve met tens of thousands of people and I’ve yet to see a person holding or wearing a personal sign or shirt announcing that they owned or had a gun in their possession.
I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, that’s just the truth. I’ve never seen any indicia of gun possession on a person or on their home. Who honestly holds a placard?
@ItsWhatEyeKnow - Go to Texas. In Texas, you have the right to shoot someone that is invading YOUR NEIGHBOR’s property. In states and cities where there are few to no gun limitations, the crime rates go DOWN because criminals generally assume people are armed. In states and cities where there are more gun limitations or even bans, criminals obviously assume people are unarmed, and are more likely to attack. Its a no brainer.
M