Immediate Access to Guns Saves Lives
Can
one support the right to keep and bear arms while also advocating “reasonable
restrictions” on firearms?
The
problem with this compromise approach is that it threatens the safety of good
people. Consider a case from a few years
ago, where a “lock up your safety device,” such as a trigger lock, would have
cost the life of Chuck Harris.
After
being repeatedly stabbed by three young men in his Colorado home, Harris managed to grab the
.44-Magnum pistol he kept in a desk drawer. Thankfully, Harris didn't have to
remember a combination or fiddle with a trigger lock—he just pointed the gun
and fired.
That
quick action saved his life, and has caused Harris to later reflect upon what
was, perhaps, the obvious.
“If
I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead,” he said. “If my pistol had been in a gun
safe, I'd be dead. If the bullets were stored separate, I'd be dead. They were
going to kill me.”
Unfortunately,
two children died on the morning of August 23, 2000, because the guns in their
home were locked up (as required by California
law). And that left the Carpenter family
defenseless when Jonathon David Bruce attacked them with a mere pitchfork,
resulting in two of the kids’ deaths.
Contrast
the Carpenter’s tragic situation to that of another California resident who ignored the “lock up
your safety” law. In February 2000, A.D.
Parker was awakened by strange noises outside his bedroom in the middle of the
night. The 83-year-old Parker grabbed a
handgun he had not even used in several decades, went to his bedroom door, and
found himself face-to-face with a thug holding a crowbar.
Happily,
Mr. Parker didn’t have to fiddle with a trigger lock, remember a combination,
or look for a key in the dark room. He
simply pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
That is why he survived the attack.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I have carried "Open" for nearly 15 years here in Wyoming. Yes, at first, people would react as if in "911 Terror - Man With A Gun - Mode" , but I tried to remain polite and civil and people just don't freak out anymore. I'm quite satisfied to have contributed to the public desensitization of such madness of simply open carry by everyday people.
Oddly enough, there had been a false rumor about me being "Homosexual," and based upon this false allegation in this very Western corral, CC Sheriff Jerry Colson refused my request for a CCW, I guess because I was thusly thought to be a "Pervert."
Interestingly, I ran into Henderson and Mckinney, meth-heads paid off by my neighbor bar owner and drug baron (Who thought I was a "Narc") and they nearly did me and my son in while camping. Only openly carrying a .357 Magnum saved our lives that day, and the authorities have done NOTHING since even though I've reported it in detail and writing several times.
They had even snuck into our camp late that night, quietly, but you could hear them running off as I chambered my shotgun. (A shotgun is considered the best home defense gun of all) The distinctive noise of that makes a distinctive impression on home invaders... Something I guess those who want government to casually invade your rights to privacy null and void want to negate...
The two went on to do more sex -orientation hate crimes (So I believe), to finally get caught for crucifying Mathew Sheppard in Laramie on a barbed wire fence.
Police aren't in the business of protection of your life - They get their promotions, funding, new uniforms, shiny cars and the like based upon how many and they don't care who - they populate the prisons with. Long gone is the moral propensity of they, as men with as if with ethics , defend, protect, and support the US Constitutions and its rights for the individual as the Supreme Law of the Land, above and long before local political (And usually corrupt and nowadays even very Communistic ) regulation and legislation. Their "Sworn oath" is nowadays more an allegiance to their paychecks, nothing more.
I've seen statistics, research, and anecdotes supporting both sides of the debate, so until there's real proof one way or the other, it comes down to what you believe. I happen to believe that guns do not make us safer, in general, but because the evidence is ambiguous, and because the Constitution protects our right to bear arms, I oppose overly restrictive bans on firearms.
Ah, so what do I mean by overly restrictive? I think a person ought to be able to have a handgun in their homes. Sports enthusiasts ought to be able to shoot targets at firing ranges. And hunters ought to be allowed to have rifles and shotguns.
But I just don't understand extreme right-wing objections to things like background checks. Of course we'll never completely prevent criminals from having guns, but at least we can make it hard on them. We could devote our political energy to a lot more important things if we could just agree on some reasonable compromises here. All you gun rights supporters, get over your fear that all your rights will be taken away, and accept a few reasonable restrictions. And all you gun rights opponents, accept that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens aren't going to go away completely, just like drinking didn't go away during Prohibition. And let's get on with things like, I don't know, figuring out how to reduce the national debt.
That's why even they can't provide a study that shows that banning guns , or even restricting access to them by law -abiding citizens results in a reduction in crime . However, if you have access to such a study, can you please provide it here? I will personally forward it to the Brady Campaign if you can.
On the other hand, there are plenty of studies that show a reduction in crime in areas where handgun carry is allowed. So to say that the evidence is ambiguous is a misrepresentation of the facts. And in general I agree with your statement on anecdotes. But they do serve to emphasize a point. I guess you said that though, didn't you? ;-)
Good closing statement too.
There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books. Is that too few??
Remember: NO law can prevent anything!!
Dmonasg
every gun purchased in the US from a gun dealer or gunshow has a background check associated with it through the FBI NICS background check and a form 4473. What we the gun extremists, disagree with is increasing the national debt to fund programs that have never lead to a conviction and have cost nearly half a billion dollars, like oh, say, ballistic fingerprinting. nearly 500 million dollars- to show . . . .nothing.
That could have funded a lot of schools to save some of those people from a life of crime they failed to prosecute with that waste.
we don't oppose reasonable things- we oppose stupid things, and unfortunately- thats all that has been put forth. Stupid stuff- like a ban on barrel shrouds, proposed by Sarah Brady. You know what a barrel shroud does? it acts like a heat sink- just like on the processor of your computer. it helps cool things down. Gun powder burns hot (big surprise there I know)
why ban something that provides such a function? the answer is stupidity. Many politicians try to play on the lack of information of non-gun owners, make false statements and create straw man arguments to things that aren't a problem.
Gun control is very rarely about guns, and far more often about control.
Some of your examples make perfect sense. Banning barrel shrouds seems excessive. Perhaps you are not a gun extremist, after all, just a reasonable gun enthusiast.
But what about one of the more key provisions of the lapsed 1994 federal assault weapons ban - what's so wrong about banning private use of clips with more than 10 rounds? And with respect to gun shows, it's true that licensed dealers at gun shows must conduct background checks, but individuals not routinely involved in the gun trade ARE allowed to sell their guns without conducting background checks. It is certainly possible to place additional restrictions on private sellers at gun shows, and thereby to reduce the availability of guns to criminals, etc., without invading private homes. Yes, illegal gun sales would still occur, but it would be harder.
You say you only oppose stupid stuff, and I applaud you for that. But there are plenty of advocates who oppose all restrictions on gun ownership, just in principle. That stifles healthy debate, just as much as those who support every restriction they see without thinking about whether it's stupid.
Dmonasg
private sales between persons are a horse of a different color. I must admit I don't purchase firearms from private individuals, just because I like to have a warranty with products.
The capacity thing I disagree on, but I can see where you are coming from. There are a lot of gun games that require higher capacity weapons, and also there have unfortunately been a number of civilian involved shootings where a person had to fight off, for lack of a better term, multiple attackers.
if you look at a lot of the guns used in crimes, many can't even hold more than 10 rounds. A lot of the handguns used for crime are just not in that category.
we'll come back to capacity restrictions in a minute-
I agree, some people on my side of the fence are a bit right of 'hard liner' with some of their views. Their thought process, or the thought process of some of the ones I've encountered, is as follows:
'death by a thousand papercuts' progressively more and more little bits of legislation to limit and price out many members of society from firearm ownership, until they have been forced to exist as a small minority- where they no longer have their rights respected.
many of those hard liners look at Australia and Great Britain, countries where legislation was increased, steadily for years, and then all of a sudden, their rights were stroked away with a single move of a pen. Overall violence in both countries went up after those pen strokes.
they are so fearful of being boxed into a corner that they lash out at any legislation.
I hate to make this reference, but it is one worth repeating. So I apologize in advance. Nazi Germany had gun laws that basically broke down as follows- you could own weapons for hunting, and you could store them at your local police station. To many, that sounds REASONABLE. some would say that its not a bad idea to have laws like that here.
we are obviously NOT nazi Germany; however, none of us can read the future. we don't know what rights our kids, our our grandchildren may need to be happy and healthy in our society. This goes beyond guns too. If we allow guns and the 2nd amendment to be gutted, we set precedent for the WHOLE bill of rights to fall under scrutiny.
I'm not against background checks- I think they are a great thing. The capacity ban I think is silly, just because most encounters and shootings in the civilian world happen with less than 5 rounds- its somewhere on the FBI website, but you can check.
so why limit something that isn't a problem?
A lot of people say, well what about that bank of America robbery in California? that was a terrible tragedy, where 2 crazy guys did some serious gun smithing and black market dealing to get some heavy weaponry.
but what ended it? Police, taking civilian legal guns (ar-15s) and putting the shooters down. what was the response of California? ban civilians from owning the types of rifles the police took from a gunshop to stop the gunmen.
The problem I think, is that most of these legislators are more concerned with hype and votes than understanding the issue- so they put a lot of stuff together that sounds big and bad- and try to ban it. Alls that ends up doing is punishing law abiding citizens. Even if i don't agree with a law, I still obey it.
we are paying the price for their lack of diligence, and we pay it with our rights and our tax dollars.
The other problem is, much of the reasonable measures you talk about, get unreasonable things tacked on to them. Sure background checks are legal, but what was the fat stuck on that bill? what else were we forced to sacrifice to get one good thing?
thats more of a line veto question, but think of some of the laws that aren't gun related, that have passed regarding your hobbies. how much of it could have been better for citizens if the legislators really understood the subject, instead of focusing on what sounded big? what sounded good?
I think you make good points, but I think the price for some of the reasonable things comes with a higher price tag than many expect.
for instance- the brady campaign has a big push to oppose a bill right now- saying it would make it legal for children to walk the streets of DC with assault rifles.
if you read the bill, it basically undoes the unconstitutional ban, as ruled by the Supreme Court, in washington DC.
Don't forget also that DC, or Phili- these are cities with the tightest and most restrictive gun laws. yet they have the most violence. if that doesn't prove that much of this legislation is wasted, I don't know what does.
I must be fair- I don't like the use of anecdotes in arguments regarding legislation. At most they should serve as exclamation points at the end of statistical analysis. If we rely on anecdotes, this argument can go on indefinitely.
An easier way to look at this, I think- would be this:
If immediate access to guns didn't save lives, we wouldn't arm our police. Sure the counter-argument may be 'but police are trained'. Do not underestimate the vigilance of everyday Citizens to stay sharp and proficient in firearms handling. Many states require lengthy classes and courses of fire to prove the shooters ability to not only understand the law, but to prove competence.