![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bullet points
Dec. 24th, 2009 12:52 pmHorrible pun aside, a comment someone made on Facebook today got me thinking about gun rights. She was bent out of shape because wearing guns inside the State House was made illegal. It was only legal to do so in 2006, and was illegal for about forty years before that. The only reason it was made legal again was because the original boundaries of the State House were ill defined. The incident got me to thinking about gun control and the various arguments people make for it.
* "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" I find very little to argue with here. The Constitution is very clear about the right to bear arms, in the service of a well regulated militia. Perhaps only police, military, and national guard members should be allowed to carry guns? It would mean a bigger turnout in the Armed Services I'll bet!
*"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." The more I hear that argument, the more idiotic it sounds. Yes, people kill people and they sometimes use tools to do it. Anything can be used to kill someone. I have easily half a dozen lethal weapons on my desk right now. My odds of killing you with my salt shaker are somewhat less than my odd of killing you with my pen, or a screwdriver. Those odds dramatically increase if I have a tool which is designed to propel a bullet at high rates of speeds over a good distance. (Now I sound like I'm talking about Crossfit. Jesus, I have a one track mind.) A gun is not terribly versatile, it's not a computer. It's made to shoot things: targets, deer, people. It's not meant to be a paper weight; it's use as a deterrent from violence is limited at best.
*The fear argument cuts both ways with gun ownership. Gun advocates are afraid of losing their rights, being oppressed by the government, or being accosted by criminals. Gun abolishers are afraid of indiscriminate killing and upswings in violence when every one has a gun. Some people feel safer when they have a gun, but look at it this way. If someone is going to try to rob you, odds are they already have their gun out. Odds are they will shoot you before you can draw. Odds are they will shoot you from ambush. Or, they could just leave you alone and go after someone without a gun. A gun may be a security blanket, but it's certainly not a shield.
* Violent crime in New Hampshire is among the lowest in the country. Some point to the fact that citizens can bear arms as cause of this. Go to Washington DC and the violent crime rate is much, much higher. People aren't allowed to carry guns there. But is that a direct correlation? What are the statistics for shooting in big cities? Are most of the victims innocent unarmed bystanders, or are most of them gang related? The fact that many people could have guns hasn't seemed to be a big deterrent against gun violence.
*Guns are out there, and they aren't going away. Even though the Constitution is two hundred years old, and even though laws do change from time to time, the core element is still valid. If citizens don't have the right to bear arms, their security is limited to the benevolence of their government. Whether it's King George, Dubya, or Obama, bearing arms is a necessary safeguard in case your government turns into a dictatorship.
* Does freedom have to be black and white, all or nothing? If you want to own guns, do you need to bring your gun to school with you? How about work? Maybe you live in a bad part of town, and it's not safe being without one. Do you need a gun in a hospital? How about at a football game?
In the end, I am for the right to bear arms. I acknowledge that by being for this right, I accept all the school massacres, crimes of passion, and child deaths caused through negligence. I accept that carrying a gun on my hip may make me less of a target, but it won't save me from a gun fight. Gun ownership is a huge responsibility, but not everyone is responsible. And anyone can have a bad day, lose their shit, and open up into a crowd. Or would they? New Hampshire seems a good example of gun ownership working. Perhaps the social contract is strong enough, people's instinct for self-preservation, would stop events from spilling over into a catastrophe. This last paragraph calls to mind a scene from Predator 2. A man is being hassled by some thugs on the subway, so he pulls a gun. The thurgs hassling him pull out their guns. All the commuters on the subway pull THEIR guns on the thugs, leaving Bill Paxton and Maria Conchita Alonso to defuse the situation. At least until the Predator shows up and kills everyone except Maria Conchita Alonso. The real moral of the story? You're better off not owning a gun, unless you are pregnant.
* "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" I find very little to argue with here. The Constitution is very clear about the right to bear arms, in the service of a well regulated militia. Perhaps only police, military, and national guard members should be allowed to carry guns? It would mean a bigger turnout in the Armed Services I'll bet!
*"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." The more I hear that argument, the more idiotic it sounds. Yes, people kill people and they sometimes use tools to do it. Anything can be used to kill someone. I have easily half a dozen lethal weapons on my desk right now. My odds of killing you with my salt shaker are somewhat less than my odd of killing you with my pen, or a screwdriver. Those odds dramatically increase if I have a tool which is designed to propel a bullet at high rates of speeds over a good distance. (Now I sound like I'm talking about Crossfit. Jesus, I have a one track mind.) A gun is not terribly versatile, it's not a computer. It's made to shoot things: targets, deer, people. It's not meant to be a paper weight; it's use as a deterrent from violence is limited at best.
*The fear argument cuts both ways with gun ownership. Gun advocates are afraid of losing their rights, being oppressed by the government, or being accosted by criminals. Gun abolishers are afraid of indiscriminate killing and upswings in violence when every one has a gun. Some people feel safer when they have a gun, but look at it this way. If someone is going to try to rob you, odds are they already have their gun out. Odds are they will shoot you before you can draw. Odds are they will shoot you from ambush. Or, they could just leave you alone and go after someone without a gun. A gun may be a security blanket, but it's certainly not a shield.
* Violent crime in New Hampshire is among the lowest in the country. Some point to the fact that citizens can bear arms as cause of this. Go to Washington DC and the violent crime rate is much, much higher. People aren't allowed to carry guns there. But is that a direct correlation? What are the statistics for shooting in big cities? Are most of the victims innocent unarmed bystanders, or are most of them gang related? The fact that many people could have guns hasn't seemed to be a big deterrent against gun violence.
*Guns are out there, and they aren't going away. Even though the Constitution is two hundred years old, and even though laws do change from time to time, the core element is still valid. If citizens don't have the right to bear arms, their security is limited to the benevolence of their government. Whether it's King George, Dubya, or Obama, bearing arms is a necessary safeguard in case your government turns into a dictatorship.
* Does freedom have to be black and white, all or nothing? If you want to own guns, do you need to bring your gun to school with you? How about work? Maybe you live in a bad part of town, and it's not safe being without one. Do you need a gun in a hospital? How about at a football game?
In the end, I am for the right to bear arms. I acknowledge that by being for this right, I accept all the school massacres, crimes of passion, and child deaths caused through negligence. I accept that carrying a gun on my hip may make me less of a target, but it won't save me from a gun fight. Gun ownership is a huge responsibility, but not everyone is responsible. And anyone can have a bad day, lose their shit, and open up into a crowd. Or would they? New Hampshire seems a good example of gun ownership working. Perhaps the social contract is strong enough, people's instinct for self-preservation, would stop events from spilling over into a catastrophe. This last paragraph calls to mind a scene from Predator 2. A man is being hassled by some thugs on the subway, so he pulls a gun. The thurgs hassling him pull out their guns. All the commuters on the subway pull THEIR guns on the thugs, leaving Bill Paxton and Maria Conchita Alonso to defuse the situation. At least until the Predator shows up and kills everyone except Maria Conchita Alonso. The real moral of the story? You're better off not owning a gun, unless you are pregnant.
