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.
And they're going to get them anyway regardless of any law.
Here here.If I wake up in the wee hours and somebody is mucking about in my home the first evidence of my presence will be me lighting them up with the million watt spot wired onto the fore end of my remi 870. It's nice to think you can relly on "scarin' em off", but if they happen to be armed, every advantage should be taken by you, including suprise.
Awww, she's a beauty! The original Siamese Princess is a 15 1/2 year-old, fat, cranky seal-point with the name of Her Royal Highness the Princess Jessamyn of Siam, Jessy for short. That's for sharing the picture.
As a threat to their profitable "turf."
The goal of modern day government is to encourage as much dependency on the government as possible. I've said for years that you cannot separate the welfare state from gun control and a disarmed citizenry. Not long ago, self-reliance was both a virtue and a necessity and the highest form of self-reliance was self-defense. Nowadays, the government that considers you too childish and stupid to provide for your own sickness, unemployment, old age, etc., also promises to "protect" you from the bad guys.
Liberty and security are incompatible. If you wish to be taken care of as if you were 12-years-old, be prepared to be treated as if you were 12-years-old.
"We're from the government and we're here to help you."
What I would like for Christmas is a Smith & Wesson 21, .22 semi-auto revolver. Beautiful gun, retails new for over $800.
A friend of mine owns two. I asked him to remember me in his will.
I belong to a gun club and have been told that it's easier to get a new handgun permit in some towns than in others. I had no problem here in Caldwell, New Jersey, and a friend can expect to get her permit approved in one day (she has a large gun collection). On the other hand, another friend was given the run around for nearly a year. Strangely enough, this was in a rural area of New Jersey but the police chief thinks that only the police should own handguns!
Of course, activist (read liberal) judges hate people who defend themselves. They don't believe that people should do anything for themselves. After all, that's what the government is there for -- to look after you and take care of all of your needs! (sarcasm off)
I don't dial 911, I dial 357.
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.