Or you were lucky.
Or I was careful and handled them responsibly.
More likely? Did you not see the blog I linked to showing hundreds of examples of citizens successfully using firearms to protect themselves? Sure, maybe some gun owners have secret Rambo fantasies, but you’re generalizing. Most people, myself included, would prefer to go through life without ever having to use their gun to defend themselves. Still, I’d rather have the gun available to defend my life than to be defenseless and wait for the police to show up.
They have just as much of a right to have a gun to defend themselves as I do.
As usual, what this argument boils down to is the right of the individual vs. the rights of society. The US has always put a much higher value on individual rights compared to the rights of society - this is a product of history, and how the country came into existence.
The individual who says “I should have a gun, I can be trusted, I am not a danger to others, I am safe and well trained”… Well, they are usually correct.
When we look at the mass of people in a society however, it is less safe for everyone as a whole, if there is unrestricted access to guns, particularly handguns. If anyone can get a handgun easily, and carry it about, I don’t blame those of you who also want to carry! What this leads to unfortunately, when we look at society as a whole, is an increase in gun accidents (because there are unsafe people out there) and an increase in guns in the hands of bad people (because guns are easy to obtain), and an increase in crimes of passion committed by otherwise law-abiding people in the heat of the moment. (because some people are hot headed)
Most countries put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual when it comes to guns. However, a country like Canada does not have drastically fewer gun deaths because we are not allowed to have guns. There are lots and lots of guns in Canada. There are regulations though, that help keep them out of the hands of crazies and criminals, and since not everyone is “carrying”, most don’t feel the need to protect themselves. It really does become a vicious circle in the US: If many people are carrying handguns, I see why I, a law-abiding citizen, would feel the need to also carry one for protection.
Yes, YOU did. YOU are responsible and careful. YOU are not a hot-head.
However,when guns are in the hands of EVERYONE , chances are that some people will be unsafe, or hot -heads, or chemically unbalanced, or will sell their gun to criminals.
What you’re saying is that YOUR rights trump the benefits to SOCIETY as a whole. This is the way it is in the US, so you are correct. But your society suffers for it.
No, they are asking the state for permission to use a specific piece (well, class) of item, which has the potential to cause harm to others. The use of a gun is neither necessary nor sufficient to defend yourself.
I guess the larger question is why are some of these acts of violence occuring? Do the guys who kill their wives lack the appropriate coping mechanisms? Gun violence is the symptom of much larger issues. I think an improved education system, funding for mental health programs, and drug policy reform could curb a lot of the violence.
What did you think of “Bowling for Columbine”? I ask, because you’ve just summed up the film’s main question.
You’re absolutely correct. However, as this would involve the public paying for these services through tax increases or debt increases, and drug policy reform is a communist/hippy idea… I don’t think you’ll get much buy-in from the NRA, “my rights are paramount” crowd.
I haven’t seen that movie in years so I don’t think it would be fair for me to comment on it now.
Here’s why those in the US who treasure their individual right to own and carry a gun should not worry that this will ever change:
- In the US, “individual rights” tend to trump “benefits to society”. This is partly due to the history and birth of the country.
-People are notoriously bad at assessing risk to themselves. There is much worry about being assaulted by armed criminals, when in fact this risk is low.
-People are also bad at assessing risk from other sources - “I’m always safe, so I’ll never have an accident.”
-The more guns are freely available with few restrictions, the more worry there will be about a violent society, and therefore more people will want to carry guns; vicious circle.
-There is a large industry that makes a lot of profit selling guns. In the US system of Lobbying government officials, large industries tend to have a great deal of sway in political decisions.
- Finally there is that amendment thingie, which goes back to the birth of the country and the passion for individual rights. I happen to think that the founders were thinking that organized, regulated, armed militias made up of common people would serve as a check against the government itself changing into a totalitarian state. (long term thinking) However, there are other interpretations that state that they meant to have open, unfettered access to all sorts of guns for everybody, primarily for individual self defence (short term thinking). What the founders actually meant will never really be resolved, so guns are here to stay.
Suppose I believe that my best option to defend myself is to disarm the people who might shoot me? Arguably, it works better than the plan of arming myself. I don’t have to worry about people who have firearms with longer ranges, or people shooting me while I’m asleep or looking the other way, or deciding which gun goes with which suit. And it protects people who are blind or paralyzed or little children. For God’s sake, won’t somebody think of the children!!!
So my right to defend myself requires gun control. And I don’t want the State waving some law in my face telling me it’s unconstituional and I can’t have it.
Don’t see how having to fill out a piece of paper before you can carry a gun is anyone’s but yours.
Yep…you have a right to self defense.
You know who else has a right to self defense? Every US citizen (see District of Columbia v. Heller). That includes prisoners and paranoid schizophrenics. If you are in a prison yard and get attacked you can defend yourself.
In your view a gun is the best means for self defense and the state cannot trump your right to the best means by mandating a permit to have a gun.
Thus, all prisoners and paranoid schizophrenics and such should have a gun. Or rather the state cannot have any role in denying them one since that would trump their right to the best available means of self defense which is their right. Prison yards can be a dangerous place after all. Downright inhuman to deny them guns to defend themselves.
That about sum it up?
I’m curious. Would most of these people likely have a history of domestic abuse, drub & alcohol abuse, mental illness, or violence?
Really? Most of the murders in Oz are committed by normal people without any history of past violence who just suddenly snap? Here in the United States it seems that domestic abuse doesn’t generally start with murder it starts with assault and works its way up to murder.
Odesio
I find it interesting that the actual text of the study seems to indicate that victims of shootings had a much higher chance of being involved with alcohol, drugs, arrest records, etc–I need to go through this thing but from the charts of data it really seems like what this is saying is “criminals are more likely both to have firearms and get shot than Joe Average.”
Why is that interesting? If they asked me before they started the study that is exactly what I would tell them I would expect. I suspect they’d agree too. Hardly a surprise to anyone I think.
It’d be interesting if it showed something different.
Sorry, I should rephrase–I find it interesting that the study abstract doesn’t appear to mention that gun+intoxicants or gun+criminals are apparently more deadly than just plain gun.
I’m a supporter of gun licensing with a skills test and gun registration, so that’s pretty much what I expected to see–if you want good results from gun ownership, some effort has to be made to make sure the cohort of “gun owners” are going to be responsible about it.
I’m going to take a different tack in refuting this.
You don’t have the right to defend yourself.
If you did, you’d have the right to kill anyone, anytime, without needing a specific reason - because if you have to wait for evidence of them being an actual threat it might be too late by then. Or to put it another way, this argument about the actual defensive usefulness of a gun is irrelevent - everybody knows that the best defense is a good offense. So, because you cannot kill grandmas and small children at random, your right of self-defense is infringed.
Okay. Having established that you don’t have the unrestricted right to defend yourself, what do you have? The question implies the answer: you have the restricted right to defend yourself, using the methods permitted by society. You can’t nuke them from orbit and you can’t get uber-preemptive. Limitations, limitations, limitations everywhere. Because you only have the rights you are given.
And if that list of limited rights doesn’t happen to include guns, then oh well.
People are quite good at assessing risk to themselves because the vast majority of them who own guns never have an accident (I don’t like the term accident. Incident is a better term. Most accidents are avoidable), nor use it to commit suicide, nor kill someone with it.