Gun Control
Had an argument with a friend today. I think I lost the argument, but as usual it ended up sending me down another wild goose chase of contemplation.
The question is simple: should we allow people (even law abiding salt of the earth good people) to own guns? For the moment, lets restrict that to hand weapons and leave the issue of hunting or sport out of it. My friend says no. Providing a lawful way of acquiring a gun just makes it easier to obtain one illegally. Having a gun increases your chance of getting shot (often with the same gun). All very valid points.
On the other hand, if you're threatened by a criminal who happens to have a gun, I'm sure you'll wish you had one to defend yourself with. Some people find the self-defense excuse ridiculous, and I suppose it is just a little bit too convenient. On the other hand, as long as guns are being used to assault people, there will be a need (real or perceived) to obtain guns for self defense. You cannot argue that the self-defense excuse holds NO water at all.
Personally I'm in favour of a gun free society. But I believe the manner in which we obtain such a society is important. I believe the criminals need to be disarmed first. Think about it, you've seen it in movies: The two opponents have a gun pointed at each other. If the good guy (lets leave the good/bad argument out of it for the moment) disarms first, the bad guy won't think twice about pulling the trigger. Do it the other way round and there is no problem: a good man won't shoot an unarmed man.
We are still faced with a very big problem though: How do you decide if a man is good or bad? How good must a man be to legally own a gun? It certainly is a lot simpler to simply outlaw guns completely and I can understand and even support that position.
It would be naive to forget that we are not even close to such a situation at the moment. Lets compare this with the cold war. America has nukes. Russia has nukes. Neither really wants to use it, but neither can really get rid of it before the other does. Similarly, the criminals have guns, but unlike the cold war situation, they don't mind using them. Wouldn't it be incredibly stupid to expect gun owning citizens to disarm first?
I'm of the opinion that when we work towards a gun free society, all initial effort should go into disarming the criminal. Disarming the law abiding citizen is an easy way to fake a successful campaign, while in reality you've done very little to reduce gun-related crime.
Can guns be outlawed completely? Unless you can get away without an army, or you manage to create an army that is effective with only a baton and some pepper spray, you have a problem. Leaving your country unprotected is not the responsible thing to do. What about warships and planes? For all of these things there are only two solutions: either we all have the same fire power and we end up in a cold war scenario, or none of us have any firepower and we end up strangling each other or slicing throats with sharpened stones.
I really see no solution to this conundrum. My solution would be to allow, but tightly control gun ownership. Limit the number of guns a person is allowed to own. Limit the amount of ammunition. Force them to get training, even retraining. Then go after the illegal gun owners with everything you've got. You might have to repeat this process a few times. Forget the idealistic bullshit. This is not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one. Not unless we can get everyone to cooperate, something which is most certainly not going to happen.
Finally I have to say that I will probably not buy a gun for self protection. Even killing a man in self defense will probably leave you guilt-stricken and sleepless for months. It is not something you want to subject yourself to. For that reason I will probably invest in another less lethal method of self protection.
You may wonder why I am so comfortable with the idea of having a gun in the house. As a child, there was always a gun in the house. In fact, there was five, ranging from an airgun to a big ol' shotgun. Each had a different purpose of course. But there was one thing my dad taught us about guns: respect. You NEVER point a gun at someone, even if it isn't loaded. If you carry it, you always carry it upright, or you point it at the ground, even if it isn't loaded. You never take a chance with a gun. If there is a bullet in the bore, you regard it as loaded, even if it isn't. There is after all only a bit of gunpowder between yourself and certain death. This is of course another part of the problem: not many people have this sort of respect for a gun.
The question is simple: should we allow people (even law abiding salt of the earth good people) to own guns? For the moment, lets restrict that to hand weapons and leave the issue of hunting or sport out of it. My friend says no. Providing a lawful way of acquiring a gun just makes it easier to obtain one illegally. Having a gun increases your chance of getting shot (often with the same gun). All very valid points.
On the other hand, if you're threatened by a criminal who happens to have a gun, I'm sure you'll wish you had one to defend yourself with. Some people find the self-defense excuse ridiculous, and I suppose it is just a little bit too convenient. On the other hand, as long as guns are being used to assault people, there will be a need (real or perceived) to obtain guns for self defense. You cannot argue that the self-defense excuse holds NO water at all.
Personally I'm in favour of a gun free society. But I believe the manner in which we obtain such a society is important. I believe the criminals need to be disarmed first. Think about it, you've seen it in movies: The two opponents have a gun pointed at each other. If the good guy (lets leave the good/bad argument out of it for the moment) disarms first, the bad guy won't think twice about pulling the trigger. Do it the other way round and there is no problem: a good man won't shoot an unarmed man.
We are still faced with a very big problem though: How do you decide if a man is good or bad? How good must a man be to legally own a gun? It certainly is a lot simpler to simply outlaw guns completely and I can understand and even support that position.
It would be naive to forget that we are not even close to such a situation at the moment. Lets compare this with the cold war. America has nukes. Russia has nukes. Neither really wants to use it, but neither can really get rid of it before the other does. Similarly, the criminals have guns, but unlike the cold war situation, they don't mind using them. Wouldn't it be incredibly stupid to expect gun owning citizens to disarm first?
I'm of the opinion that when we work towards a gun free society, all initial effort should go into disarming the criminal. Disarming the law abiding citizen is an easy way to fake a successful campaign, while in reality you've done very little to reduce gun-related crime.
Can guns be outlawed completely? Unless you can get away without an army, or you manage to create an army that is effective with only a baton and some pepper spray, you have a problem. Leaving your country unprotected is not the responsible thing to do. What about warships and planes? For all of these things there are only two solutions: either we all have the same fire power and we end up in a cold war scenario, or none of us have any firepower and we end up strangling each other or slicing throats with sharpened stones.
I really see no solution to this conundrum. My solution would be to allow, but tightly control gun ownership. Limit the number of guns a person is allowed to own. Limit the amount of ammunition. Force them to get training, even retraining. Then go after the illegal gun owners with everything you've got. You might have to repeat this process a few times. Forget the idealistic bullshit. This is not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one. Not unless we can get everyone to cooperate, something which is most certainly not going to happen.
Finally I have to say that I will probably not buy a gun for self protection. Even killing a man in self defense will probably leave you guilt-stricken and sleepless for months. It is not something you want to subject yourself to. For that reason I will probably invest in another less lethal method of self protection.
You may wonder why I am so comfortable with the idea of having a gun in the house. As a child, there was always a gun in the house. In fact, there was five, ranging from an airgun to a big ol' shotgun. Each had a different purpose of course. But there was one thing my dad taught us about guns: respect. You NEVER point a gun at someone, even if it isn't loaded. If you carry it, you always carry it upright, or you point it at the ground, even if it isn't loaded. You never take a chance with a gun. If there is a bullet in the bore, you regard it as loaded, even if it isn't. There is after all only a bit of gunpowder between yourself and certain death. This is of course another part of the problem: not many people have this sort of respect for a gun.
posted by ispburger at 11:31 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home