Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership
When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; its not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if theres a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few yearsindeed, the past few weekshave shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.
The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if youre not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldnt it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a drivers licenseor better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilots license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a castle doctrine that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.
I realize that the phrase responsible gun owner has become a trope of the gun-rights lobby, but behind the cliché, it can actually mean something. Every two years, I take six hours of firearms training with an off-duty police detective. Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address.
My education as a liberal gun owner began when my 70-year-old mother, living in Bel Air, Los Angeles, felt that she needed to get a pistol. My sister and I were against it, figuring that if she ever tried to use it, the most likely outcome would be that she would shoot my father. Despite our objections, she bought herself a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. That same day, my father bought himself a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun (I assumed to defend himself from intruders, not from my mother).
The article is an interesting read from someone who is highly educated. Even so one can find several points where "best practices" are not followed.
yagotme
(3,816 posts)Driving a car is NOT a listed right in the constitution. Even so, how long does it take to get a driver's license? First time, what, an hour or so? Then, you can go out and buy your own car, another hour or so. Licensed and purchase of vehicle in the same day. Show me a "grabber" that would agree to a first time buyer getting a gun license and proceeding to purchase, and receive a firearm, all in the same day. Asking for one thing, and wanting another.
GenXer47
(1,204 posts)"I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself."
This flawed logic flows from a false premise. What gun ever jumped out of its holster and stopped a bullet?
Escalation of a situation is the best that can happen and the results often take the lives of innocent bystanders.
This writer ignores so many things:
- It's not safe to shoot guns in populated areas, period.
- One day they'll die. Then what happens to those guns? Are they sold to who-knows-who, by disinterested family members? Or kept loaded on your nephew's kitchen table next to the vodka?
- They can be stolen.
- No one is immune to mental illness. No one.
The arrogance, vanity, and childish fantasies of American gun owners must end. Man up and live like the people in all the other developed countries in the world: without a damn gun!
And if the 2nd Amendment is so awesome, so necessary, here's a challenge: prepare your pitch to the French Parliament. Convince them that they're doing it wrong, and we're doing it right. You may want to avoid the numbers, the stats, the shredded torsos of schoolchildren, in your pitch.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)France criminalizes many forms of speech that the U.S. doesnt, and I prefer the U.S. model. I find it uncompelling when people say I should man up because they disagree with the Constitution. If you dont like it then change it. I prefer to leave it as is.
But per the original post, there are certainly things we can do within the parameters of the Constitution that seem reasonable, its just convincing politicians to take these steps.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)first world country and so many of them are entirely preventable.
Join the movement to prevent instead of punish after.
sarisataka
(21,000 posts)Not a passive protection, that is true.
It begs the question then, is there a right to aggressive self-defense and if so, what are (should) be the limits?