Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Heck, Give Everybody a Gun!
LewRockwell.com ^ | 11/11/03 | Brad Edmonds

Posted on 11/11/2003 4:03:03 AM PST by Siamese Princess

John Lott (buy his book), Richard Poe (buy his), and all manner of libertarians have been making the case that widespread gun ownership decreases crime; and that personal gun ownership is consistent with, even guaranteed by, the 2nd amendment. Even the government, following the war between the states, saw it that way as freed black slaves were guaranteed gun-ownership rights because, as several courts decided, gun ownership was the most important test of whether a man is truly free.

Thomas Sowell and John Lott have shown that multiple-shooting incidents, where a single nut goes on a killing spree, happen mainly in gun-free zones (such as government schools), and that multiple shootings are usually terminated only when someone else shows up with a gun to stop the shooter. An exception would be the Columbine massacre, where the shooters killed themselves when they ran out of nearby victims; in that one, the armed sheriff’s deputies stayed outside, away from the shooting, until the shooting stopped. They performed this heroic act on orders from the sheriff.

It should be clear why the government and your local police don’t want you to have guns: If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police, or indeed, the military. More ominously, you can defend your person, property, and family from the government itself: An armed and educated America would not only need to be less afraid of such government crimes as Ruby Ridge and Waco; that sort of America might clamor for the reduction of the size of government, or even the institution of a different one (a natural right our founders understood and held dear). That our government doesn’t like the prospect of individual gun ownership is not unique to the US – governments all over the world have gun-control laws. Naturally, such laws are no more effective elsewhere than they are in the US.

But for the time being, it remains possible for us to purchase and own guns. My recommendation: One pistol per family member, at least one short-barreled shotgun per family, and a deer rifle with a scope per family. Pistols offer mobile, concealed personal protection. Shotguns offer effective home defense. A pump shotgun is even better than a semi-automatic, since the sound of you chambering the first round is usually enough to send an intruder running for his life, so everybody wins – he learns a lesson that might prevent him from entering the next house and you don’t have nightmares about the mess his guts made in your house. The high-powered rifle, for its part, provides a threat even the government must take seriously. Few flak jackets do a very effective job of stopping a heavy, pointed bullet traveling at 2800 feet per second (the most powerful pistols manage at best 1500 fps with a lighter bullet). Additionally, you can be a threat from hundreds of yards with a deer rifle. A large city – heck, even a neighborhood – full of people owning such weapons would be a formidable problem for the ATF.

So there are bunches of reasons for me to want everybody to have guns – crime goes down, and I would venture to place a wager that government would slowly begin shrinking as well.

And I can’t think of a reason for everybody not to have guns. I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do. Just as no criminals walk into a gun show to start a shooting rampage, we can be confident that few, or no, criminals would go on shooting rampages in offices, post offices, schools, or shopping malls.

Of course, our political left wing warns us ad infinitum that our society would deteriorate into daily shootouts if everybody walked around carrying a gun. Not so. Think about the current situation: We are allowed to drive cars and to carry baseball bats. You can kill lots of people with either. Nobody ever does it. The 99% of us who aren’t criminal kooks simply don’t go around hurting other people. Think about all the people you work with, see at the grocery store, meet at church and social occasions: How many of those people would you fear? Some of the stronger ones among them already are able to kill you with their fists. How often do they do that?

So: It has been established empirically that we would have less ordinary crime if everybody walked around armed. It has been established empirically that we would have less fear of foreign invasion, and less fear of terrorist attacks, under the same conditions (remember the statement by WWII Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."; and see how often Switzerland has been invaded). It was established logically by our government itself in the early days that the government would be better kept at bay with gun ownership. And those towns that have high levels of gun ownership prove what common sense suggests: Widespread gun ownership doesn’t make criminals out of ordinary people – only criminals are made to feel unsafe when everybody’s armed. Indeed, data in the US show that you and I are more trustworthy gun owners than the cops themselves.

Go out and buy yourself some guns today, and give some as gifts. You’ll love yourself for it, and make me feel safer at the same time.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
Holiday season is approaching and it's time to buy gifts for those you love, even if only for yourself. Give the gift that keeps on giving.
1 posted on 11/11/2003 4:03:04 AM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Wow, something I can agree with from Lew Rockwell...
2 posted on 11/11/2003 4:08:39 AM PST by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do.

Also of note: felons weren't prohibited from owning firearms until the 1968 GCA.

3 posted on 11/11/2003 4:16:22 AM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang!
4 posted on 11/11/2003 4:16:44 AM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
bump
5 posted on 11/11/2003 4:18:00 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Good grief, Lew Rockwell is actually making sense.

- from one Siamese Princess to another.

6 posted on 11/11/2003 4:20:56 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Djarum
if some one has served his time and paid his debt to society, he should not be denied his rights...

then again, in 1968, it was all about getting thugs back onto the streets to wreak havoc so they could enforce more stringent laws on our freedoms.

keep us in fear and we depend more on the government for protection...

teeman
7 posted on 11/11/2003 4:32:04 AM PST by teeman8r (due to technical difficulties beyond our control, no tagline is available at this particular time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Problem is the author of the original article clearly isn't
reading Schumer--or Rosie--If only he had read these
outstanding authors I am shur ehe would be able to see
our nation is less safe for all the availability of guns--
people don't kill people--guns do.
8 posted on 11/11/2003 5:10:09 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Another author has read my mind. When did they put one of those chips in me?
9 posted on 11/11/2003 5:38:02 AM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
Are you sure you don't wanna put a (/sarcasm) tag on the end of that one? I mean, there is humor and then there are trolls....
10 posted on 11/11/2003 5:48:19 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
And I can’t think of a reason for everybody not to have guns. I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do.

If a released felon wants a gun to commit a crime, no law will stop him.

If a released felon wants a gun but doesn't want to commit a crime, no law should stop him!

11 posted on 11/11/2003 5:50:39 AM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
This article had me until the ATF statement.
I have met and talked to the agents of this oft smeard agencey. What professionals. Who do you think investigated the '93 World Trade Center bombing?
And as for Waco, that was a manager's call looking to impress Washington. Not the agents who got chewed up by the stupidity. I talked to the FBI Swat who responded for the seige. It was more Dessert 1 cluster than evil empire.
(I say this because of an expected response from the ATF-is-evil crowd)
They enforce the laws given them by congress the same way any cop enforces the laws on the books. Want to have a positive view of your government? Elect conservatives that make sensible laws and position professionals in management. Elect Democrats and you get activist laws and biased unethical management. (FILEGATE IRS AUDITS etc)
As for gun ownership, I have always owned them and do not think present gun laws are constitutional. By repealing them you would see gun prices go down and crime go down. The cost of building new prisons and the insurance claim reductions also would be down. The time in manhours and cost to law enforcement in enforcing gun laws is reduced.Less crime victims and less cost to the taxpayer. What's not to like?
Oh, and the ATF would still be there working with other agencies to protect us all. I remember the agents wearing the ATF jackets at the Oklahoma federal building and the World Trade Center and on the capture of Muslim bomb makers in New Jersey......
12 posted on 11/11/2003 6:13:52 AM PST by IrishCatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
It should be clear why the government and your local police don’t want you to have guns: If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police...


Clearly.

Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.

As a threat to their profitable "turf."

13 posted on 11/11/2003 6:46:59 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
I have met and talked to the agents of this oft smeard agencey. What professionals. Who do you think investigated the '93 World Trade Center bombing?

What is a tax-collection agency doing investigating crimes? Wasn't the FBI in charge?

And as for Waco, that was a manager's call looking to impress Washington. Not the agents who got chewed up by the stupidity. I talked to the FBI Swat who responded for the seige. It was more Dessert 1 cluster than evil empire.

"I vas only followink orders!" (And if this was the work of one bad manager, why did the agency lie and cover up, instead of imprisoning - or at least dismissing the scapegoat?)

They enforce the laws given them by congress the same way any cop enforces the laws on the books...

...Stomping on kittens, committing perjury to gain a conviction, planting evidence, and putting people in jail for 10 years for failing to pay a $200 tax.

I remember the agents wearing the ATF jackets at the Oklahoma federal building...

I remember hearing how the ATF agents who worked in the Murrah building were suspiciously absent the day of the blast. But that's only a rumor about our heroes in black kevlar, the standing army our founders feared.

14 posted on 11/11/2003 7:01:06 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
re: (I say this because of an expected response from the ATF-is-evil crowd)
 
Professionals in action.
15 posted on 11/11/2003 7:26:03 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
ugh... that'll teach me to post a link without reading it all the way through.
the noticed towards the end the author got kind of flaky conclusion-wise (plus I completely missed the 'paranet/ufo garbage at the top of the page). still the first portion with the survivor accounts is accurate and in sync with more credible sources.
better linkage: Worldnet Daily's pretty reliable. check the archives.
Waco expert's death 'suspicious'
 
Vin Suprynowicz, solid as always. Speaking the unpalatable truth
 
Davidian Masscre  
16 posted on 11/11/2003 7:55:15 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Governments and liberals agree:

Only the police and military need guns.


17 posted on 11/11/2003 7:57:08 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
one more (dang I'm getting prematurely senile or something)
 
(excerpted) Supports earlier claims made by independent reporters that FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) imagery examined by noted expert Dr. Edward F. Allard indeed shows federal agents firing automatic weapons at fleeing Davidians.
full article: Silence on Waco evidence
18 posted on 11/11/2003 7:58:42 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Generally a good article, but a few quibles are in order.

If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police, or indeed, the military.

The police and military are fundamentally different. The police do what we could do for ourselves, generally acting against individual transgressors, unlikely to be more armed, organized or disciplined that ourselves. The military exists to defend against heavily armed, trained and organized forces of foreign countries or in some cases sub or trans national groups. Although I hate to disaggree with Hamiliton, the prospect of having the entire militia (i.e. the people at large) as well trained, organzied and equiped as the Peoples Liberation Army, is a very daunting prospect and probably not practicle. Thus the Congress was given the power by the Constitution to raise armies.

A pump shotgun is even better than a semi-automatic, since the sound of you chambering the first round is usually enough to send an intruder running for his life, so everybody wins – he learns a lesson that might prevent him from entering the next house and you don’t have nightmares about the mess his guts made in your house. The high-powered rifle, for its part, provides a threat even the government must take seriously. Few flak jackets do a very effective job of stopping a heavy, pointed bullet traveling at 2800 feet per second (the most powerful pistols manage at best 1500 fps with a lighter bullet). Additionally, you can be a threat from hundreds of yards with a deer rifle. A large city – heck, even a neighborhood – full of people owning such weapons would be a formidable problem for the ATF.

Agree on the effectiveness of "deer rifles", and of pistols and shotguns as well. However the hoary old "rack the first round into the chamber" is best left unrepeated. The first round should *be* in the chamber, and if you don't want to do that, the sound of the bolt opening and closing on a semi auto is just as intimidating as the snick-snick of a smoothly functioning pump. (Still, I have two pump shotguns, one dedicated to "serious social purposes" and no semi auto shotguns. But that's due to reliability and cost factors, plus family tradition in the case of the "bird gun")

19 posted on 11/11/2003 9:42:28 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
I'm a size .45, but I can fit into a .357.

Do you need my address? ;-)
20 posted on 11/11/2003 9:53:20 AM PST by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson