I think I know what our problem is

BTR

New member
In my opinion, it's not crooks with guns committing robberies, freaks shooting into crowds, sleazy politicians, ivory-tower intellecuals, it's idiots with guns that will make us lose our gun rights. Witness these three stories which appeared in my newspaper today:

It was reported to police that a woman in an arguing group of people had a gun. They asked for the gun, and she pulled it out, accidentally shooting herself in the process. No mention of a concealed weapons permit, and I doubt it. She will be charged with disorderly conduct.

A girl was shot to death while on a hayride. One of the actors, as a gravedigger, was supposed to fire his gun up into the air. Though he does not recall it, apparently he missed the sky and hit the girl. He had a liscense. Why he was too idiotic to use blanks, I have no idea.

A woman shot another woman to death in an incident of "road rage." One cut the other one off, and they played aggressive driver with each other for a while. Eventually they pulled off the road. One woman gets out of the car and approaches the other, who opens fire, killing her. Neither had criminal records. No mention of a carry liscense. She will probably plead "self-defense."

This is what they pro-controllers tell us: that the public is too stupid and ill-tempered to own guns. For every violent act by a career criminal or insane person, you have people deciding to own guns, or realizing their value, for protection against them...but no one ever came into the pro-gun camp because some stupid kid killed a friend "playing" with a weapon, or an idiot with no self-control murdered someone because they lost their temper. I can only recall two positive self-defense stories in this paper- ever.

It even makes me wonder if anything can be done. Can anything be done? How capable is the "public" of safe and effective gun use?

[This message has been edited by BTR (edited November 10, 1999).]
 
IMHO, the "idiots" among us are a significant problem, both politically and otherwise. BUT the extent to which they cause death today vs. say 50 years ago (on a per capita basis) is vastly overstated by the media. The media's tack today is to immediately and repeatedly immerse the public in each and every bad event that happens today, creating the misimpression that the problem is growing and much worse than it ever was in the past. I really don't believe that it is.

In any free society, access to guns and other inherently dangerous instruments (automobiles, etc., can be included) will create unavoidable fallout. Is that a cause of concern? Of course. We should do everything in our power to minimize (if not eliminate) these occurrences. However, is that a reason to outlaw them? I don't think so. The reductio ad absurdum would be to outlaw every "non-essential" thing (sidebar: not arguing that guns are non-essential, they're just not food, water, shelter, etc.) that poses a danger. The result would be a return to the stone age.

[This message has been edited by MLT (edited November 10, 1999).]
 
I agree - the Founders assumed an armed, well-educated and virtuous populace. We have a largely unarmed populace, poorly educated, who have been trained that there are no "virtues", only "values" which can be bought and sold.

However, it is also true that gun accidents are comparatively rare. For instance, a small child is MUCH more likely to drown in a backyard pool that shoot himself or someone else with his parent's gun - yet there is no talk about legislating home pool safety. And of course, more people are killed in auto accidents per year than in most wars - yet 16 year olds get driver's licenses as a matter of course - and parents by their teenage daughters BMW sportscars!
 
Back
Top