- from one Siamese Princess to another.
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.
Also of note: felons weren't prohibited from owning firearms until the 1968 GCA.
- from one Siamese Princess to another.
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!
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.
Only the police and military need guns.
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")
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.