Bullet talk: Part II

weblogs.baltimoresun.com ^ | 28 January, 2011 | Candus Thomson

[marktwain]

"Bet you're sorry you did that," a friend said after I posted a blog item raising my own doubts about the availability of high-capacity magazines following the shootings in Tucson.

Actually, I'm still glad I did. Despite the nasty-grams from people who accused me of being a homosexual, a tool of the left and spawn of the devil, I received a lot of thoughtful responses from readers about why attempts to regulate firearms and ammunition wouldn't have changed the outcome or made society better.

I like to revisit my own beliefs. I like a good argument. That's what you gave me. Thanks. I thought I'd share with you some of the best comments.

(Aside I: To those of you who wrote hate-filled garbage, that stuff will NEVER get posted. Further, what you wrote isn't half as bad as the slime the anti-hunting crowd sends me.)

(Aside II: Yes, I know the difference between an clip and a magazine. The fact that I used clip in my blog was just shorthand--a term I have heard police officers use when talking about their service Glocks. I would no more dismiss an argument on those grounds than I would denegrate the comments and philosophy of anyone who responded with misspelled words and bad grammar. It's the thought that counts, folks.)

Anyway, here's some of your thoughts:

Jason: I like to start these conversations talking about liberty. You see, the gun issue is a bellwether. Knowing how a person views guns tells you a lot about how they view their fellow citizen.

A person who thinks that the common citizen's gun rights should be restricted thinks of the common citizen as a lesser class

[marktwain]

It looks as though reason and logic may have had an impact on Candy.

[Iron Munro]

From the article:

Actually, the strongest links to murder statistically are gender and race.

Males commit most murders.
Blacks (an eighth of the population) commit half of all murders.
A large percentage of murders are drug-related, mostly in regard to conflict over drug distribution.
Guns? Only about 0.005% of them will be used in a murder in a given year.
High-capacity magazines? A tiny-fraction of the number of gun-related homicides.

[Zeppo]

I haven’t read the previous article to which this one refers, so I can’t say with any certainty whether or the author is “a homosexual, a tool of the left and spawn of the devil”, however based on her apparent willingness to rationally evaluate the merits of this issue, I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here...

[bitterohiogunclinger]

Candy may be open minded, but I assure you that the dimwitted politicians and average liberals haven't let up in their “crusade”.
They have rushed forward with “high capacity magazine” legislation. It will probably go nowhere. The point is that they have never abandoned their goal of disarming us common, law abiding citizens, and they never will. They merely learned that it cost them politically during the Clintoon regime and kept their mouths shut. It's going to cost them dearly again is my prediction. Americans are not as stupid as they think.

[SampleMan]

High capacity magazines, like your standard 12ga field gun.

5 rounds of 3” 12ga 000 buck comes out to 50 deadly projectiles. How does that compare to a high capacity 9mm?

[DrC]

The National Academy of Sciences—hardly a right-wing group—studied this intensively and found no evidence that gun control reduces gun deaths.

“Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn’t identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.”
http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalAcademyStudy.htm

Yet people keep championing limitations on handguns as if it’s intuitively obvious it would do some good. If we subjected proposed social policies to the kind of rigorous experimentation that FDA requires of new medications, we’d have a whole lot fewer rules and regulations imposed on us.
Before restricting the freedom of 300+ million Americans, maybe it would be a good idea to try things out in a few communities to see if such restrictions actually make a difference.

[Oldpuppymax]

Neither high capacity magazines nor “Saturday night specials” nor “assault weapons” nor the murder rate have anything to do with the left’s perpetual crusade to do away with 2nd amendment rights. It is impossible to enslave 150 million armed Americans. That is why leftists want to take our arms. The Founders considered it MANDATORY that the people have the right to keep and bear arms as the means to overthrow a tyrant. Period. Of course the left will never admit it.

[OneWingedShark]

Comment on the Article from the site:
WHY does anyone need a gun?
WHAT are they AFRAID of?
If they're that INSECURE,
maybe they shouldn't be armed.

---

You ask why anyone needs a gun; there are several answers but the most interesting deals with both symbolism and mentality. Before I explain that though, there are perfectly legitimate/practical reasons one would need a gun:

1. farmers, ranchers, and those living or working in rural & semi-rural areas to control varmints and protect ones person/family/livelihood from predators and wildlife like wolves and bears;
2. the civil duty of the citizen of the militia: most states define their militia similar to “every able-bodied male between 18 and 45;"
3. self-defense: there have been a surprising up-tick of stories about people confronting burglars & robbers in their homes in the past few years and to assume that your home will not or cannot be invaded in such a manner is folly.

In regard to mentality, I have found that carrying a weapon tends to make one both more self-confidant & more aware/conscientious of their surroundings and consequences of actions. No doubt this is in part to training, which I initially received in the military, and has continued at a somewhat more relaxed pace since my exit from there. Go to an open carry event if you can and interact with the people and see that there really is a difference in their manner –they tend to be more secure, I think– and not a bad difference.

Finally we get to the symbolism; it is here that we must brush off out history and think back to the Roman-Empire and later the Saxon tradition which in-turn influenced the English. In the roman times to carry a sword was a mark of a Citizen of Rome, no mere slave or conquered people was permitted to have one. The Seax, a particular knife/sword, was the same according to the Anglo-Saxon Foundation “It is part of England’s heritage, and at one time it was the sign of an English Freeman or Woman.”(Ref)

Maybe the question should be “Why aren’t more people armed?”

[Texas Fossil]

Adversity employs great talents; prosperity renders them useless and carries the inept, the corrupted wealthy and the wicked to the top

May they bear in mind that virtue often contains the seeds of tyranny

May they bear in mind that it is neither gold nor even a multitude of arms that sustains a state but its morals

May each of them keep in his house, in a corner of this field, next to his workbench, next to his plow, his gun, his sword, and his bayonet

May they all be soldiers

May they bear in mind that in circumstances where deliberation is possible, the advice of old men is good but that in moments of crisis youth is generally better informed that its elders

Denis Diderot

Apostrophe to the Insurgents, 1782