An interesting OP-ED piece with which I agree in the Miami Herald
Government interference in firearms ownership is a mistaken attempt to provide security, but it’s making us less secure, instead, and raising our taxes, to boot!
I agree. And the first thing I would do is find like-minded citizens, pool our resources, form a police force, then disarm anyone who we think might threatened us. A preemptive action if you will, much like our effort in Iraq. Are you with us or against us, Brother SnakeSpirit?
I think it’s a pretty silly piece, to tell you the truth. You can argue the case that private ownership of guns improves the safety of citizens in their homes against housebreakers, and that this gain outweighs the loss which comes from accidents involving firearms, the involvement of firearms in domestic disputes, and the use of firearms by people who genuinely but mistakenly believe that they are under attack. I’m not persuaded, but you can certainly argue the case.
But I really don’t think you can argue that an armed citizenry provides any kind of defence against terrorist attacks on the US, or that the risks which stem from having armed citizens protecting public space from terrorist attack on a “freelance” basis don’t vastly exceed the likely security gains.
If only Congress hadn’t ignored the clear intent of the Second Amendment and didn’t trample on the rights of citizens to own and carry Surface-to-Air Missiles - the tragedy of September 11 could have been avoided if only one person at the World Trade Center had been carrying a shoulder launched Stinger missile. Well, two people as the case played out.
And once again some smart-aleck takes something to the ridiculous extreme. Why can’t you guys debate in good faith?
You forgot the Pentagon. And you call yourself an American.
Comic hyperbole is a legitimate debating tactic. If you’d prefer it stated less frivolously, how’s this - how could increased access to personal weapons for US citizens prevent major terrorist strikes such as 9/11? (That is, without allowing Stinger missiles etc in private hands, which I think we all agree is not a good idea)
I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that personal firearms can stop major terrorist attacks.
Not all terrorist attacks are major, though.
Are you oughta your friggin’ tree? Look at the trouble we got already. Spend the weekend in an emergency room, look at the ongoing massacre we already got from dipshits who drink and drive, and you want them all to carry guns?
How many “He flipped me off so I plugged him” do you think you wanna hear on the evening news?
How about our sons, in the growth cycle,when the testosterone hits, and they turn horny, surly and stupid? What do you want them to crave: a hemi muscle car or a .357 magnum?
Your mamma be telling you to always wear clean underwear, in case you get shot by a truckdriver…
Stopping anything as well-planned and executed as the 9/11 attacks would require an absurd amount of luck, so I think we can write those off as virtually unpreventable.
However, is it unreasonable to think that a few conscientious citizens with firearms could have prevented the shootout in Hollywood a few years ago? Possibly. How about Columbine? Had a few teachers been trained in the use, carry, and storage of firearms, could the massacre have been prevented? Possibly. It can be safely said that not arming a few teachers was not effective.
See, what we have here is not a lack of ability, but a lack of will. People are so afraid of the dread bogeyman gun that even under circumstances that would have benefited by having a gun for defensive purposes around not only is there resistance to the idea but there are calls for more gun banishment.
It’s almost as if the idea of proactive action has disappeared in favor of reactive actions, and after the fact response saves no lives.
Anyway, as terrorist acts are generally understood (car bombs and the like), they are virtually unstoppable. But stuff like attempted murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults could be prevented in larger numbers, I believe, with the arming of citizens.
And, I might add, none of those scenarios require the dread surface-to-air missile. Besides, those are bulky, cost prohibitive, and limited in usage, so why would anyone want one? That’s what I mean by “ridiculous extreme”. Nobody seriously advocates private ownership of SAMs, but yet someone pulls it out as an example. How droll.
If everyone is armed it stands to reason that you are taking a huge chance with your life by trying to “plug” someone. The other person might be a better shot or a faster draw. Arming citizens fosters courtesy rather than aggression, whereas now if you attack someone you can be reasonably certain that they don’t have a gun so there’s no real brake on aggressive behavior.
Read the linked article in the OP. The author explicitly states that private citizens with personal fireamrs should be guarding potential targets against terrorist attacks. The only problem the author sees with implementing this program is that government restrictions prohibit citizens from owning powerful enough weapons.
So I may be a smart aleck but I didn’t wander too far beyond what the author of this article actually proposed.
Courtesy. Well, hell, if somebody’s gonna put a cap in my ass because I look at him crosseyed, damn straight I’m gonna be coureous. Yeah, what a fucking wonderful world, when I accidently step on a guy’s toe, and have to scream “please don’t shoot me, it was an accident!” Out-fucking-standing, soldier! You come up with this spewtopia yourself?
I live in a place where if two drunken assholes get tangled up, somebody might get their nose broke. I used to live in a place, two assholes get tangled up, somebody’s likely to get shot.
If that’s what you prefer, you’re welcome to it, but if that’s what you’d prefer, you’re nuts.
In an ideal world, perhaps.
But we don’t live in one of those.
However, most killings occur in inner-city areas where crack cocaine is prevalent and firearms easy to come by. The center found that less than 1 percent of all homicides involving children aged 5 to 19 occurred in or around school grounds or on the way to or from school. The real problem then seems to be not violence in schools but the easy availability of guns.
Perhaps, fewer guns is an answer?
As long as we’re taking it to extremes, why not make sure nobody is armed, rather than everybody?
But if a criminal knows or assumes that most of his potential victims are armed, he can just decide not to take any chances. He’ll shoot his victims in the back before he robs them.
The problem is that a gun cannot prevent the initiation of violence; it can only offer an increased threat of retaliation. In some cases this increased threat may be enough to prevent the initial violence. But in other cases, the potential threat will just increase the level of the initial attack.
Gun control advocates argue that the better solution is to prevent both sides from having guns. You may not agree with their position (and there are undeniably rebuttals that can be made to their position) but don’t assume that only one side of the debate has a rational argument to make.
And seeing some of the posts that have gone up in the last few minutes, I’d like to advise others to read the part where I said “don’t assume that only one side of the debate has a rational argument to make”.
And there you have it. No more people challenging people to fights over stupid stuff. Just a simple “Sorry” and you go about your business.
Now wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing? Sure would, if you ask me.
Perhaps, if you can guarantee that nobody has one. But the genie long ago left the bottle, and you’ll never bottle the bitch back up so the idea that we can eliminate guns entirely is an absolute impossibility, nice as it would be.
Of course, then we’d all have to hone up on broadsword techniques, and then there would be some real courtesy.
But aren’t there certain things that are inherently so dangerous that we restrict who has them?
To extend the ‘genie’ argument to what I perceive to be its logical limit:
since the atomic genie is out of the bottle, should we make sure every nation on the planet is armed with nukes and long range missiles, as it would ensure global civility.
But… what if we just didn’t give people access to killing-machines. Do you really think everybody in Dobpatch USA would get out their knives and start stabbing each other?
People in downtown London certainly don’t bemoan their lack of guns and run around with sabers.
Perhaps civil society is possible without giving the power of lethal force to every citizen?
Sure, but as history has proven, that doesn’t work. After all, the security surrounding the development of the bomb was the most intense we ever had, and yet the Soviet Union had one within 4 years. North Korea hasn’t been deterred, nor was South Africa or any other country that tried to make a bomb. So we can’t restrict any weapons from anyone. Should everyone have the bomb? That depends upon your perspective, doesn’t it? I’m not happy about the idea of Iran or North Korea having one, but I’m sure they’re just fine with the idea.
Civil society is possible now. Unless, of course, you’re the victim of uncivilized behavior. It is my sincere belief that such behavior can be deterred through the threat of force and the absolute certainty that if an attack is attempted it will result in severe consequences. Do people pick fights with Mike Tyson? No, they pick fights with the 110-pound weakling down the street. If that weakling is packing and everyone knew it, would you not say that that would be a major deterrent? I would.
I’m not in disagreement with you that total disarmament would be the ideal, but barring that I will not allow myself nor will I allow anyone I know to be a victim if I have the means to prevent it. Fair enough?