Home > Government > Guns Or No Guns

Guns Or No Guns

Guns or No Guns

“When a government fears the constituency, its first action is to disarm them.  When faced with this action, the constituency’s duty is to arm itself even further.”

This has probably the most pointless discussion people can have.  The issue is so emotional that no one is going to be moved from their beliefs by anything anyone else says.

The main thing that I have noticed is that the people who are known to me to be the most knowledgeable on the subject have been very quiet.  I suspect that is because, if they are carrying weapons, they do not wish to advertise the fact.  If they are not, they don’t need to shout about that, either.

With all the considerable rhetoric I’ve seen, I have yet to read one simple truth.  Owning a firearm is a responsibility that demands you become, and stay, proficient.  To do this requires more time, effort, and money than most people, even gun owners, are willing to invest.  Even then, no amount of proficiency will prepare you to take a life when face-to-face with the situation.  Winning target matches is not preparation for defending your life.  Paper targets and clay pigeons do not shoot back.

I spent many years as a martial arts instructor and saw several instances where tournament champions were assaulted and, in one case killed, by people not fit to shine their shoes.  Why?  Perhaps on that day and time, the assailant was luckier.  More likely, because the martial artist was not mentally prepared to take the instant and brutal action necessary to survive.  That decision has to be made long before the need arises and most people never give it serious consideration.

If you think you need a firearm for protection, then be prepared to invest what it takes to be ready if you need it.  Also be prepared for the financial, legal, and emotional burden of using it.  In fact, these can apply even if you never use it.  If you’re not ready for that, do not have a firearm no matter where you stand on the question.

Both pro and anti-gun people make good arguments for their respective sides.  In the end, the decision has to be a personal one and no one can or should make it for you, either way.  The issue of defending yourself and your family is something each of us has to consider whether we ever leave our home or not.  Whether you use a firearm, flare gun, or baseball bat, you must still be prepared to perform a harsh and often fatal act to another human being.  It’s a lot more difficult than you can imagine.  It isn’t like movies, where you waste the bad guy and move on without another thought.

Ask any police officer who’s been there, you think about it for a long time afterward.  Anyone that says you don’t either doesn’t know anything about the subject or is a very sorry excuse for a human being.

As far as gun ownership, perhaps it too easy for unqualified people to own a firearm? After all, you have to have a license and proof of at least minimal competency to drive a car, fly a plane, and in some areas, operate a boat.  Why shouldn’t you have to show that you understand the care and maintenance of firearms and safety issues involved and are able to take all the correct actions.  This would include an understanding of self-defense ordinances in your area as well as any laws concerning when and where you may or may not be armed.

Then you would be issued a license to own a firearm.  Having the license would not be evidence that you did own a gun, but were qualified to do so.  This would be the same as having a driver’s or pilot’s license would not prove you owned a car or plane, but that you could if you chose.

Naturally, none of this would keep guns away from criminals, no law can do that.  Perhaps that’s one of the reasons they are criminals?  Here in Brazil, for example, it is almost impossible for private citizens to legally possess a firearm.  Yet, criminals frequently have more firepower than the police.  In a country where private guns are very rare, criminals seem to be able to get all they want.  That seems to be the case in most countries with restrictive gun laws.  So much for “gun control.”

  1. Dino
    April 12, 2011 at 1:05 am | #1

    I agree with you. I was in the army and we learned that only 39% of soldiers fired their weapons effectively during war. Some soldiers were killed in their foxholes without even firing a shot. There has to be mental discipline to use a weapon and even more so to keep it safely away from children and others who lack the skill to use it. I’m going to get my concealed carry permit, even though I might never actually carry the gun I just want to have the choice to do so if I want.

  2. dave
    June 10, 2011 at 9:22 pm | #2

    I’m the sorry excuse for a human being of whom you speak.

    • June 10, 2011 at 9:54 pm | #3

      I suspect that you have never really seriously harmed another person, much less shot and killed them.

      If you know you’re a “sorry excuse for a human being,” what are you going to do about it?

      Perhaps this is just a bit of macho bravado stating you could shoot someone and never give it another thought. If true, you fit the current clinical definition of a psychopath. I urge you to seek professional help before you do something that will bring grief to yourself and others.

      If you’re just being a macho braggart, you might be lucky and never have to learn some unpleasant truths about yourself and society.

  3. dave
    June 20, 2011 at 8:35 am | #4

    You could not be more wrong in any of your assumptions. I Have given it much thought, I choose not to let it bother me. I had a couple years to think about it, and when I was released because The courts finally saw it was self defense I had to put it behind me and move on. i stay away from people as much as I can so I don’t get bothered by them.

    Would I shoot someone else? Sure, I can not allow myself to second guess the decision if the need arises. I wouldn’t think twice about defending what is mine, That includes the use of deadly force. Sure I hope I never have to even make that decision again.

    • June 20, 2011 at 11:34 am | #5

      Then tell me, exactly what assumption was wrong? That you have never seriously harmed another human being? Frankly, your story does not ring true. A self-defense case does not take two years to decide. That is also not done by the courts but by a prosecutor, They are smart enough to examine the evidence to determine if there is a case or not. That’s what they’re paid to do.

      I don’t doubt you stay away from people as much as you can. Most would be able to see through your lies, too. By avoiding people, you can live with your fantasies.

      You never made that decision the first time and are clearly hoping you get the chance to off someone. Go away, little boy and spread your dreams elsewhere.

  4. dave
    June 22, 2011 at 7:48 pm | #6

    Yes you are wrong in the assumption that I never harmed anyone. Your assumption that you know how the law in America works, If you haven’t heard of an appellate court then your assumption that courts don’t decide the fate of the accused, You are also wrong that the prosecutors are smart enough to examine the evidence. They are paid for results, they don’t care how they get them.

    This incident happened in 1981, the manslaughter conviction was overturned in 1984 and i was released from prison in 1984. You assume that I am not being truthful about staying away from people, wrong again. I work in a small industry where I don’t have to interact with many people face to face on a daily basis, When at home, it’s just me and my wife, on my little farm in the middle of nowhere. Again ,I don’t have to interact with many people on a day to day basis. I like it like that and I wont change,

    Yes sir, you were wrong in your assumptions, perhaps I was wrong for evening mentioning it. Here is where assumption bit me in the ass. I assumed that you wanted a reply, foolish me, Perhaps I presented the opinion of myself as a “sorry excuse for a human being” inappropriately, If so I apologize, If I offended you sensibilities when it came to your views on gun ownership that cant be helped. See here in the united States we are allowed to own guns, and use them for our own protection his goes against the grain of some people, and most liberals and all gun grabbers. Th that I say To each his own you sir have a nice day, a safe life and enjoy the weather.

  5. September 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm | #7

    “With all the considerable rhetoric I’ve seen, I have yet to read one simple truth. Owning a firearm is a responsibility that demands you become, and stay, proficient.”
    You must be reading the wrong stuff. I think you’ll find that this is the mantra of most serious gun owners as well as groups like the NRA.
    In regards to this:
    “Ask any police officer who’s been there, you think about it for a long time afterward. Anyone that says you don’t either doesn’t know anything about the subject or is a very sorry excuse for a human being.”
    Taking a life is not something most people do every day, so I get where you are coming from. Killing should never be taken lightly. It’s not like brushing your teeth.
    That being said, there are some assholes that it is an absolute joy to kill.

    • September 11, 2011 at 6:34 pm | #8

      I agree, that responsible places, such as the NRA state much the same. I was referring the the often shrill rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd and the “guns for everyone, no matter what” imbeciles. There is always a lot of thoughtless prose on either side of any question. So much that the voices of rational thought are often drowned out.

      Yes, there are some assholes for whom it is an absolute joy to kill. I was in the military with a few and they were sorry excuses for human beings.

  6. December 27, 2012 at 6:38 am | #9

    Good article. We need to listen to every angle and every possible answer. These shootings must stop.

    I believe the link is SSRI Antidepressants. Every school shooter in the last 25 years has either been on them or withdrawing from them.

    Michael Moore was concerned about it a few years back, why not now?

    Check out this database of SSRI incidents:
    http://ssristories.com/index.php

    This is one tough paper: If you read this you will know that it’s the drugs.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/
    US National Institutes of Health: Antidepressants and Violence-problems at the
    Interface of Medicine & Law

    • December 27, 2012 at 11:08 am | #10

      I have not heard that about all school shooters being on or withdrawing from SSRI antidepressants. But I have never taken any kind of antidepressant so have not had occasion to learn about them.

      I suspect the chances of successfully combating big pharm companies is nearly zero. That’s why I recommend licensing people to own firearms. The chances of that seem much better. Also there can be levels of licensing. A basic liens for low-power weapons, a supplement for handguns, semi-auto guns and whatever is shown to be needed. The license would have to be renewed periodically with background and medical checks.

      No, this will not solve all problems with gun ownership, but why make it easy for the unfit and illegals?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: