It has become obvious during the recent calamity along the US Gulf Coast that we are primarily responsible for our own security. During times of disaster and civil unrest, the government is not capable of maintaining order. After the hurricane the streets of New Orleans became a sort of “Wild West” town.
Many makeshift signs on houses and businesses read “KEEP OUT. OWNER IS HERE AND HAS A GUN!” or something along those lines.
Have the recent events illustrated the fact that our Second Amendment rights are more essential now than ever? Is gun control a concept that has proven unrealistic and short sighted? It is easy during times of relative quiet and security to say no one needs powerful firearms, but if I was a New Orleaner last week, I would have wanted an AK-47, AR15 or assault shot gun to defend my family and property from the lawless.
Has the aftermath of Katrina made you rethink your stance on gun control?
First, the general notion that since gun control didn’t work in extraordinary circumstance X, it won’t generally make society safer as a whole. Hence my first post.
Think of it this way… if I get a security system installed in my apartment, I could reasonably make the argument that it will keep me safer from the average, everyday crackheads that loaf around my block. But would it keep me safer from NINJA crackheads? Probably not. Though I’d be pretty much shit outta luck if ninja crackhead decided to come steal my laptop, ninja crackheads are relatively rare in these parts, and my security system isn’t a complete waste of money.
The second problem with your argument is that many of the thugs in NO running around shooting people apparently looted their guns from Walmart or wherever after the storm. Would you rather that every last one of them was armed with an AK instead of the more typical handgun or shotgun? Anything that was legal before the crisis becomes fair game during the crisis if the security situation deteriorates the way it did in NO.
FWIW, I consider myself a moderate on gun control. I don’t own any, but I’ve enjoyed shooting on the opportunities that I’ve had to go to a range. On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with the assault weapons ban.
If anything, I came away with the opposite impression, namely that the NO experiment showed how disastrous wide availability of guns can become in a crisis. You say that, "After the hurricane the streets of New Orleans became a sort of ‘Wild West’ town. " I fully agree, and one of the significant contributing factors was the looting of every gun dealer in NO. With widespread legal guns comes widespread illegal guns. It’s never been otherwise.
Resolved?! Hell no. I don’t think anything can ever be resolved honestly, if there are two people in a room there will be three opinions. (Note: a little hyperbole there).
I’ve always been of the opinion that while gun ownership should be allowed, guns **should ** be regulated and controlled. Every person I run into who says there should be no gun control claims to be responsible and adult. Yet people are neither of these things. People are dumb, stupid and dangerous.
Frankly, I don’t think most people can handle the responsibility. Having a gun automatically raises the ante. I am still where I always was about guns: I may one day own a shotgun, but most likely not. I will never own a handgun.
Just to make my position clear, I agree with **black455 ** here:
FWIW, I consider myself a moderate on gun control. I don’t own any, but I’ve enjoyed shooting on the opportunities that I’ve had to go to a range. On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with the assault weapons ban.
I’ve never been shooting, but I’m sure I would enjoy it.
I’ve owned guns off and on for most of my life. After a period of about twelve years of not owning a gun, I recently bought a revolver for work related self defense. I’ve taken the safety course, although I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know and I’ve applied for a concealed carry permit. I am a responsible gun owner, just as I am a responsible automobile driver. I also own kitchen knives and pocket knives and I could own a baseball bat if I wanted one. All three of those items can be deadly weapons yet I can own them with no difficulty. Why should gun ownership be any different? If I want a gun and have the means to buy one, why should anyone be able to tell me I can’t have one?
I bought my most recent gun from a licensed firearms dealer; the serial number of the weapon is recorded at the manufacturer. The manufacturer keeps a record of which serial number is sold to what licensed dealer; the dealer records that serial number and keeps a record of who buys the weapon from him. I had to wait three days after the purchase before I could take the gun home with me; presumably that period of time allowed a background check to be performed on me. As a further precaution, the manufacturer test fires the gun before selling it to a dealer—at least one sample of a fired bullet is kept and full records of the particular gun’s ballistic characteristics are maintained. How can anyone contend that my legal purchase isn’t a controlled purchase?
In my opinion, most “gun control” advocates really want not to control gun ownership but to abolish the right to have one at all.
You of course are referring to the Second Half of the Second Amendment. Watching the New Orleans situation, my thoughts weren’t that too few people had guns, it was that too many did. I thought New Orleans was remarkably similar to post-invasion Iraq- if everybody and their cousin is brandishing RPG launchers, should anyone feel safe? The homeowner with a pistol is going to be outgunned by the looter with a semiautomatic, so signs that says the owner is armed are merely going to thwart the casual looter. The heavily armed and the gangs of thugs could ignore such warnings.
My feelings on guns are that if you want rifles and shotguns to hunt, fine. If you sleep better with a pistol under your pillow, knock yourself out. But if you want something that only has military application, then I have a problem.
However imagine yourself in the following situation:
Katrina blew through 36 hours ago. You and your family weathered the storm ok, but the 1st floor of your house is under 2 feet of water. The upstairs bathroom stinks because you can’t flush the toilet. You are half way through your 3 day supply of food and water.
From your window you see a band of thugs. They didn’t plan too well for the storm and have to loot or steal food and water daily. While they are at it, they like to grab any cash and jewelry they find in abandoned houses. (the tvs and dvd players were ruined by the rain) You see them kick in the door of the house catty-cornered to yours. They go in. You hear an argument and a gunshot. The thugs come out, their leader chewing a fistful of lunchmeat.
They are heading your way now, and you hear them splashing up your porch.
What is your best option?
Reason? Ginsu knives? Louisville Slugger?
Only you stand between your children and this group of thugs.
The point here is that you need a gun because they have a gun, and the reason they have a gun is that there are guns freely to be had in New Orleans – so freely that even the local Wal-Mart was selling them in bunches.
And by the way, I want to quibble with the title of your thread. I don’t think even the most dyed-in-the-wool NRA member thinks of gun control as “unworkable.” On the contrary, they’re afraid it works only too well. The gun issue is really something else altogether – something like, “What’s the price of widespread gun ownership, and are we willing to live with it?” Pro-gun people are okay with the price; anti-gun people are not. And from my perspective, the situation in New Orleans was pretty well illustrative of the price we often pay for free and easy access to guns.
Right now, we have certain measures of gun control: no person under 18 may legally purchase a handgun. A felon, or person under indictment, or someone convicted of stalking, or adjudicated mentally incompetent - these are all forbidden from purchasing handguns.
On the other hand, we don’t require any training or the showing of any proficiency with the weapon first. We permit people to buy guns without requiring them to show any particular need for one.
These are restrictions at the federal level; individual jurisdictions can and do impose more onerous requirements.
I’m a gun owner, concealed carry permit holder, and lifetime NRA member. I would support some sort of proficiency or skills test, for example, as long as it wasn’t subterfuge for the goal of removing a person’s ability to own a gun at all.
I think that some of the gun control proposals that have come down the pike have been just that: efforts to start a process that would end with a near-complete handgun ban.
I think that this is a poor example to use for either side of the Gun Control debate. Unless one is not advocating Gun Control but the abolition of private ownership of all guns, then you can’t really say that this is a good example of why Gun Control is a good thing. Though I doubt there are any reliable cites, my guess is the majority of guns that were used to shoot at rescue helicopters or to shoot it out with other looters were obtained illegally…either looted from gun shops or private homes. Last time I checked that was illegal. Unless guns are abolished, even with Gun Control those weapons would still be there to be looted in such a dire situation.
The other side of the coin though is that this is a fairly extreme situation thats likely to only come up once or twice in a century, where because of a hellish set of circumstances both the local and Federal government were unable to get in and take control of the situation in a timely fashion. You can’t base policy on such improbable events, but on what is the norm. So, I don’t see this event as a good example for resolving this issue…either way. YMMV.
(full disclosure: I actually do advocate a limited form of Gun Control, including assault rifles and heavier weapons. I’m a strong advocate of the 2nd and interperate both halfs and the original intent of the authors as specifically defining gun ownership as a right…but I think that things have changed in the US since the founding and some limited Controls ARE necessary)
A good car thief can circumvent The Club. Nonetheless, The Club will protect your car even from good car thieves. Because the thief would much rather pick the car that doesn’t require all the work.
Or, to put it another way… there’s a macabre joke about two hikers in the woods that come upon an angry bear. The bear starts running after them, and they flle, but one hiker abruptly stops and puts on track shoes. His companion is amazed:
“What the hell are you doing? Even with track shoes, you can’t outrun a bear!”
“I don’t have to outrun the bear. All I have to do is outrun you.”
No. I have long held that the best form of gun control is a steady grip, a clear sight picture and a smooth trigger squeeze.
If I want a gun in my house, there is no one on the face of the earth who has the right to tell me that I can’t have one. That is my interpertation of the 2nd Amendment as far as keeping arms. As far as bearing arms, I don’t object to having to go through a background check and a mandatory training class to get a carry permit. I like the idea that people who are carrying know how and when to properly use their weapon. But that’s it.
You have a point. If I have a gun, even a little one, it might make the gang head for the guy that doesn’t. But if they’re determined to get into my particular house, I’m toast.
How would gun control prevent people from defending their homes? Since when is gun control synonymous with gun seizure? Even the strictest proposed gun registration laws say nothing about seizing guns and preventing citizens from defending their homes. The notion that gun control, or gun registration is inevitably the first step to gun seizure, is a loony conspiracy theory.