Here I was yesterday:
Holstered to my hip was a .22 caliber Ruger autoloading pistol.
It was all quite legal and safe. We were on private property with properly permitted under state law handguns. The owner of the property, both the land and the weaponry, is fanatic about proper use and safety, for which I was happy. He’s also a trainer and member of Front Sight, an organization that, I guess, if you are going to have such places approaches it OK, with emphasis on proper and safe use and an acknowledgment of deadly force ethics. (Although a gated community with schools, homes and a gun range is well outside of my comprehension for lifestyle choices.)
Still and all with a day of reflection, while glad for the experience, I have not been converted. Interpretations of the 2nd Amendment aside (and I do believe that all 2nd Amendment arguments are a deep shade of gray), I’m still for gun control. Handguns and automatic weapons are designed with one purpose in mind, regardless of individual desire to talk about “sport.” They are for people killing.
Accidents and whackjobs and passionately angry in the moment folks with gun access account for deaths. Deaths by guns. You can’t really get around that reality, regardless of how much you talk about responsible gun ownership. For every upright citizen there’s an asshole or a teenager or a psychotic or someone else who thinks they know better, and my reality wishes that risk eliminated.
I don’t want to treat killing machines as toys or sports equipment. Golf clubs can kill, but that is not their design. Any comparison is so wrought with fallacy, my head explodes to listen.
Maybe for me, it becomes the same dilemma as with hardcore drugs. In an impossible, hypothetical, theoretical construct I believe no drugs should be outlawed. If people want to do heroin or crack, it is their lives and who am I to deem my heroin- and crack-free life as better? If drugs is your thing, rock on baby.
But, come on, it don’t work that way. Other shit comes along with the addict package, and the simplicity of legalizing drugs becomes muddied by a parallel group of assholes, teenagers, crazies and whatnot failing to make responsible choices. As a society, then, we all get hit by their stupidity, and we legislate against it.
Having said all that, I do know I’m talking from my ass, in that I directly benefitted from someone opposed to gun control. I had the opportunity for gun use to be demystified and removed from theory, precisely because complete bans to not exist.
And, I’ll tell you this much after firing a Glock, those motherfuckers really work. I only shot the Glock about five times, but with each shot I was pretty damn close to hitting exactly where I planned on the target. It was eerie.
You said:
“I do believe that all 2nd Amendment arguments are a deep shade of gray”
There’s no gray at all. People who insist that the 2nd amendment applies only to government militias are probably forgetting the fact that all males between the age of 17 and 45 are in the militia by default by federal law. So all males within that age range are protected – but I hardly think it’s wrong to take a broader approach that allows women to arm themselves as well – especially since they have a much lower tendency toward violence.
You said:
“Handguns and automatic weapons are designed with one purpose in mind, regardless of individual desire to talk about ‘sport.’ They are for people killing.”
Nonsense. Like very weapon that was ever devised – firearms were designed for hunting and protection. That means protection against all aggressors – animal and human. The laws of most states reflect the values of every religion that I am aware of in the sense that they provide for people to protect themselves – with lethal force if necessary. Heck, even the Dali Lama said “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
In the hands of lawful citizens, guns have proven to be a safe and effective deterrent to crime. For example, police officers protect us with guns daily. And I’ve never heard of a single case where a Concealed Handgun Licensee has been convicted of committing a violent gun crime – which really says something considering that only 4 states do not allow their citizens to carry concealed handguns, and states like Indiana have had such systems in effect since the 30’s.
In my own state, over 50,000 people carry concealed handguns after the law was passed just one year ago. Not a single violent gun crime has been reported among any of them.
Guns enable a lady like yourself to be able to fend off a strong attacker at minimal risk of physical harm to yourself. And the ability to defend one’s own body from harm is the most basic human right [the current system is ineffective and a waste of money.
Last fall when I attended a gun control debate at the John Glenn Institute of Public Policy at The Ohio State University, both sides agreed that the black market in drugs is the root cause of most gun crime – either robbing to support a habit, or dispensing backstreet justice that cannot be handled in the court system. In fact, 90% of gun crime happens in only 3% of US counties – the same counties where the black market in drugs is strongest.
The last time our nation had this problem, it was with alcohol prohibition. Gun crime reared it’s ugly head as a result of the black market. Once the US took a sensible approach to alcohol regulation, the gun crime rate in America dropped by 60%. All of the evidence points to a similar decrease if the US switched to drug regulation and drug-tax-funded treatment system for addicted Americans.
If you want to talk about our society getting hit by stupidity, you need only look as far as our war on drugs.
In closing, I’d like to suggest reading the new book “Shooters: Myths and Realities of America’s Gun Cultures” by Abigail A. Kohn. A summary and brief debate is available here.
The book marks the start of what I hope is an ongoing thought process about how we can put traditional gun control ban concepts to rest and instead focus on effective approaches at crime reduction.
I also encourage anyone who has never used a gun to ask some trusted friends if they own them. Statistically you won’t have to ask many. Go to the range, learn about gun safety, and learn how to shoot safely. And most importantly, ask questions.
I used to be anti-gun myself. But then I started asking questions and learning about them, and visiting the range with friends who taught me to shoot safely. During this same period, I was robbed at gunpoint in Canada (where gun laws are very strict).
A few years later, my grandfather decided his vision was too poor to use his firearm for self defense and arranged to give the weapon to me. As I was inspecting it (unloaded) in his living room, an intruder burst through the front door, saw me standing there with a gun, and left as quickly as he had come. I didn’t have to raise the gun or fire it – I had now joined the ranks of people who had stopped a crime by merely *having* a gun.
This past winter, after obtaining a license to carry a handgun, I was traveling home from school on the city bus system. I was not carrying my gun since guns are prohibited on campus, and on the city bus system – and this is reflected in the fact that the neighborhoods surrounding campus have the highest violent crime rate in the city (unarmed freshmen with iPods and laptops are easy crime targets).
Apparently it was my day. A man approached me at the bus stop and demanded my book bag. Before I could respond, he pinned me to the ground and started punching me in the face. I drew the only weapon I had – a can of Mace and emptied it into the attackers face. But he had been maced before, and responded by swearing at me and punching me harder out of rage. How DARE I defend myself.
After the attack it took 10 minutes for the police to respond – they were a few blocks away on shift change at the time. A transit bus driver, upon seeing blood streaming down my face and coat shook his head at me and drove on when I tried to flag him down for help. The attack cost me about $1000 in medical bills and had a negative effect on my grades. I am certain that if I had been allowed to carry that day, the man would have stopped his attack if I drew my handgun instead of a can of Mace.
I’m 6’5″ and weigh 200lbs. If I need a gun to deter violent criminals, what chance do smaller weaker people have? Have you ever thought about what you would do in such a situation? How much, to you, is an acceptable amount to be raped, stabbed, or beaten while you wait for police officers to respond with guns to stop your attacker?
Thanks for over-explaining a few things I hadn’t questioned. For clarification, I don’t want to debate the 2nd amendment, because I believe historic context is an important factor. It is nearly impossible to debate current policy around something where the men of the 18th century couldn’t have imagined our society. They were thinking country militias (not really government ones as you suggest) and front-loading muskets. It’s difficult to correlate assault rifles and pseudo-military compounds.
I find constitutional debate overwrought with people like you who assume what position I had (despite my intentionally providing you zero clues as to what my issues are) to then go on and on defending that phantom. It bores and frustrates me.
You also assume much based on my gender. At the risk of sounding what Rush would dub “femi-nazi,” please don’t call me a “lady.” I fucking hate that word for so many reasons beyond what you would likely think obvious. I’m not going to bother to explain here, because it’s not that interesting. In future, however, you probably could just refer to women as women, and females of other animals as female.
Apart from size and strength (which vary from woman to woman) and the fact I walk around with my twat every day, I’m not sure why my gender came into play here.
Please, unless you intend to enjoy my writing, and perhaps post comments elsewhere, don’t assume anything about me that isn’t clearly indicated by my own words and pictures.
You also seem to be advising that anti-gun people, such as myself, go out in a trusted and safe area and try a gun. Apparently, you missed that being the point of the little adventure I described.
Of course, we do agree that people should defend themselves against violent crime. In fact, I never suggested otherwise. I can’t even imagine why you would frame a question about the “acceptable amount” of rape, etc. I would withstand, because that’s just so fucking offensively stupid.
However, statistics also indicate that small women such as I, even those well-trained in firearm use, can and have been overpowered and had those weapons used against them. The frequency of firearms being used for UNINTENDED purposes is statistically significant.
And, since you mention the Dalai Lama, like him, I choose not to contribute to a gun-toting society.
Also, you mention the “deterrent” factor of cops carrying guns. Um, ah, yeah, no one’s getting deterred. I have yet to read any compelling argument or proof of deterrence to crime through gun carrying, except anecdotally (like yours).
Oh, and sorry, dude, that you apparently live in the high-crime corner of Ohio and likewise visited a shithole in Canada. Maybe if I were so cursed with misfortune like you, my attitudes would change.
Finally, we do agree on one thing — Prohibition did provide a lesson in what goes wrong when the government tries to take away our intoxicants. I, too, believe that the war on drugs has inflated violence and crime, and I’m all for legalization of marijuana and regulation of harder stuff.
Maybe with the extra tax revenue, the government could rid itself of GW’s personal, astronomic deficit.
GunGuy said – “Nonsense. Like very weapon that was ever devised – firearms were designed for hunting and protection”
Nnnnnnno. In my brief digging around prepping for my own cherry-popping gun shooting expirience, the time line seems to indicate that guns directly descend from the desire to have smaller cannons. If you can cite an example of John Q. Medieval riding onto the dewy forest pulling a cannon to bag dinner for the family, then I’ll cede your point. Otherwise – No.