Daily piffle:

Older Entries
Find me elsewhere

RSS feed

Apr

19

Under fire

April 19, 2007

My husband and I are gun owners. More accurately, JB is a gun owner, but one year he gave me a Ladysmith Smith & Wesson .38 Special, a revolver with gleaming grips that’s strong enough to kill a man, but sized for a woman. So I suppose I am a gun owner too.

JB was raised in a pro-gun environment. His father is a hunter, a target shooting enthusiast, and a collector of firearms; JB and his brother share many of the same interests. Target practice used to be one of JB’s favorite hobbies, especially when we lived in Las Vegas near a large range. These days he only uses guns in Oregon, when we’re visiting his family in Coos Bay and the menfolk go out to target shoot. He joins his family once a year in the fall to elk hunt, too.

Before I met JB I’d never seen a gun in real life. Now I’ve not only seen plenty of firearms, I’ve shot quite a few, from pistols to shotguns to high-powered rifles. I used to be a pretty good shot with a Mini-14, which is the sort of Big Scary Gun you see in movies depicting dramatic bank robberies.

I went shooting with JB because it was something he enjoyed and I had no particular reservations about interacting with guns (although I had a very strong emotional reaction the first time I pulled the trigger, it was overwhelming and terrifying to understand the destructive power I held in my hand). Several years ago we shot together quite a bit, and since then the opportunities to do so—and the interest, I suppose—have dwindled. I don’t think I’ve fired a gun for at least a couple of years.

Politically I am not in the same camp as JB, who believes very strongly in the right to bear arms. It’s a gray area for me. I don’t necessarily believe that gun ownership should be outlawed. I do believe it should be strongly regulated, and that, for instance, people who are forcibly admitted to mental hospitals shouldn’t be able to buy Glocks.

JB’s feeling is that if someone in one of those Virginia Tech classrooms had been armed, the shooter could have been brought down before so much damage happened. Which isn’t to say he believes students should be carrying weapons to their classes (but maybe teachers should have the option?). As he said to me, he doesn’t have all the answers to these difficult issues, he just believes Americans need to have the right to defend themselves against their fellow man. That if guns were outlawed, criminals would still get their hands on them; that citizens should not be rendered defenseless in criminal circumstances.

His opinions are more complicated than what I’m presenting here, I only mean to show his general stance.

It’s very hard to be objective about guns when they’re being used in schools to end young lives. I’ve found that since Riley was born I feel differently about guns in general; they seem uglier, their purpose a sad statement about our society. I wish, simply, that they didn’t exist.

There doesn’t seem to be a “make unhappen” weaponry vote available to me, though, and so I have to consider the realities of a world with guns. Where Riley will grow up with events like Virginia Tech that must be explained to him, a father who would like him to be exposed to firearms the same way he was—with integrity and a never-wavering focus on safety—and a mother who futilely hopes her boy spends his life oblivious to their existence.

Comments

100 Responses to “Under fire”

missbanshee on April 19th, 2007 5:34 pm

I am passionately anti-gun, but I see the arguement that if they are illegal, only the criminals will have them. It’s a vile argument, and I hate that I just have to say “I don’t know.” I know plenty of people who are responsible gun owners, and I know that personally, I never want to touch one in my life. Since I moved to the South, friends have been encouraging me to learn to shoot, and I just…no. It’s not going to happen. For one thing, and I feel this is pertinant, I have severe clinical depression. I would never turn a gun on another person, but myself? Well, there have been more several occasions in which I am glad that I should never, EVER be allowed to buy or have a gun. And I shouldn’t. Ever. I’m glad of that, and I really, truly am at a loss as to where the laws should be.

I hate this. All of it.
Jessica on April 19th, 2007 5:35 pm

I could almost have written that post myself (except probably less eloquently) – my husband owns guns and believes strongly in the 2nd amendment. I’ve fired a gun maybe twice in my life, and I’m frankly extremely uncomfortable with them. Now that we have a child I’m even less comfortable with having guns in my house, even though they are locked up and not accessible by our son. I know there’s going to have to come a time when he is taught how to handle them safely, but I’d like that to be when he’s at least thirty. I’m only kidding a little. I just wish they would go away too. This has been an ongoing discussion between me and my husband for a long time, and I don’t foresee an end to it any time soon.
angela on April 19th, 2007 5:42 pm

I’m not a member of the NRA. I am a Libertarian. I believe that people have the right to arm themselves, but I am uncomfortable with the thought of owning a gun myself because I am not comfortable with my skill level.

My BF is a gun-toting, Republican NRA member. Today he told me he is buying me a gun for my purse, even though we don’t have concealed weapons permits here. We’ll see about whether I’ll carry it or not.

I read a few things today that not only confirmed my convictions in the right to gun ownership, it made me feel like it was a necessity for every household to have one.

Gonzales v Castle Rock – A woman in the middle of a nasty divorce got a restraining order against her husband. He was not allowed to see the kids except once a week. He kidnapped the kids and she repeatedly went to the cops to enforce the restraining order and they did nothing. The husband murdered their kids and then killed himself. She sued the city because the cops did not enforce the restraining order. The result? It was found that a citizen can not sue a city or police department for failure to enforce the law. In my mind, this means that you are responsible for your own safety. And it means you can’t count on the cops to roll in and protect you.

A year ago (Jan 2006), a proposed bill in Blacksburg, Virgina allowing students to have weapons on campus was stricken down. The VT security guy issued a statement that said that he is sure that all the VT students feel safer since the bill was stricken down and there would be no weapons on campus. Right.

I have links for all this, but every time I post links I get sent into “awaiting moderation land.”
Yams on April 19th, 2007 5:52 pm

I am from India so please take what I have to say with a lot of salt. I admire Mahatma Gandhi a great deal and his philosophy of non-violence. I feel guns by their sheer exsistence are unsafe items. No matter how safe/responsible a person is you can never be 100% sure of safety with a gun lying around. Gandhi did a lot with the power of his word and actions and I wish more people did the same.

I repect JB’s point of view but nothing will get me to own a gun, ever.
renovatingme on April 19th, 2007 5:58 pm

I could have written that entry as well as my husband is a gun owner and like your husband strongly upholds the 2nd ammendment. Also my husband like yours feels strongly that if a student had been allowed to have been armed he or she could have taken the gunman down and saved more lives.

Like yourself – politically I am not in the same camp as my husband, who believes very strongly in the right to bear arms. It’s a very gray area for me. I don’t believe that gun ownership should be outlawed. And I really do believe it should be strongly regulated, people who are forcibly admitted to mental hospitals shouldn’t be able to buy guns period.

All so scary.
Pete on April 19th, 2007 6:08 pm

The excuse of “If more people carried weapons these things wouldn’t happen” is pretty lame. Remember the rash of freeway shootings in LA a few years ago. Most of them happened after people started to carry guns in their car “just in case they were shot at”. In any population there will always be a percentage that have ‘anger issues’ and if armed would express that anger with the gun. There might be fewer mass killing if more people carried but I bet there would be a great deal more crimes of passion.
FYI, I grew up hunting and owned a gun until I had kids.
Jacqueline on April 19th, 2007 6:10 pm

I am so grateful I live in a country that does not have a “right to bear arms” clause in its constitution to be ridiculous misinterpreted. This means I will never have to consider a “world without guns” because, largely, I live in one.

A US without guns would be nice though. I don’t mind my son seeing guns, as he will on TV, in books etc. I do mind however, him seeing guns pointed directly at him from a TV screen and newspaper from a shooting that happened in the US.
Aunt Linda on April 19th, 2007 6:15 pm

The constitution was written for people who had muskets, not automatic weapons. Have hunting rifles if you must. But let’s ban anything that has NO purpose but to take human life. Will it matter? Sure. Just look at the murder rate in the USA vs any other country. Most people killed by guns know their assailants; let’s not make it so easy for every angry person to off his/her family.
Swistle on April 19th, 2007 6:37 pm

Guns scare me enough to make me feel sick. So do knives or anything else including pencils and plain old box knives, if presented as a weapon by someone who intends to hurt people. Guns make me feel worst, because they are so fast and so distant and so un-take-back-able once fired. But if my husband were abusive and I kicked him out, or if there were a violent person known to be targeting my family, I would get trained to use a gun and I would keep one in my house–despite being very scared about an accident happening. All I have to do is think about my children being in danger, and I change my position on guns 180 degrees: if someone is coming at them, I want to be the one armed with something fast and distant. I guess I have to be scared of something specific and above-average-likely (as in the abusive husband scenario), though, because I haven’t gotten the training and the gun just in case of some random maniac. Maniacs are so publicized but so uncommon.
ivymae on April 19th, 2007 6:39 pm

This is a really compelling essay I heard on NPR yesterday: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/04/18/PM200704184.html

Personally, I think it goes back to a culture problem (violence seen as worthy and sexy). I think gun violence is a symptom of a problem that, as parents, we DO have a say in.
jonniker on April 19th, 2007 6:43 pm

Hm. Me too on all of it. I wrote about this a long time ago – I’ve gone to shooting ranges many times, and we’ve thought about buying our own gun(s) many, many times. We live in a state where it’s pretty common – in fact, stats for our town are that one out of every three people owns a concealed weapon. Seriously. My father-in-law never drives without a gun in his glove compartment, and my colleagues tote concealed weapons around everywhere they go. I am, frankly, a little desensitized to the whole thing, but not so much that the reality doesn’t scare me a little. No, A LOT.

It’s hard. Both sides are hard. Guns scare the shit out of me, but it’s hard for me to imagine the Undo Button as well…
Jane on April 19th, 2007 6:46 pm

Like Jacqueline, I also live in a country where guns just aren’t.

Self defence here is a matter of being wary and conscious of being followed, not having a pistol tucked into your pantyhose at all times (just in case).

I don’t have to worry about someone going postal in the workplace, because in all likelihood the worst they would do is come at me with a styrofoam cup.

That’s not to say people don’t die from guns in New Zealand, they do – but it’s a very rare occurance, and not something the majority of the population here feel they need to be on-alert for.

It’s such a foreign concept for me to imagine that any person wandering past on the street, walking into a shop, or pulling up next to me in a car could have a gun on them so I just don’t feel the need to be armed in return.

Perhaps if guns were a problem here I’d be more open to owning one myself solely for self-defence, but I wouldn’t like being in that position and as it is the need just doesn’t exist – I feel safe and it’s a good way to be. I hope it doesn’t change.
ShannonJ on April 19th, 2007 6:47 pm

I grew up in suburbia, and if I’ve ever seen a handgun in real life, I don’t remember it. They really scare the shit out of me. I think guns make it much easier for unstable people to act on their impulses. Do you think those Columbine kids or Seung Cho would have come in with a knife and killed so many people? Maybe, maybe not, but guns, bombs, etc. are a hands-off way of taking life.

My husband and I (and countless others, obviously) had this same conversation this week; ours was after watching Ted Nugent on one of the news channels. He also made the argument that if others were armed, there would not have been so much bloodshed. So what about that Amish schoolhouse? Would you expect those little kids or anyone in that peace-loving society to brandish firearms?

I see both sides of the argument, and I’m not totally against gun ownership for hunting, law enforcement, etc., but personally I hate them. I might feel differently if that had been one of my kids, though.
Virginia Tech on April 19th, 2007 6:49 pm

Virginia Tech Killers Hitler Joke
christen on April 19th, 2007 7:05 pm

I agree with Aunt Linda, for sure. That “right to bear arms” BS was written how long ago? Is it really necessary today? Look at the countries that strongly regulate guns and all things gun related… not so much with the mass murders there, eh? I don’t know. My family is a family of hunters as well, but personally, I don’t think it’s necessary at all. They don’t NEED to hunt deer, either. My brother doesn’t NEED to shoot coyotes. They might eat the meat from the deer, but they don’t NEED it in the first place. That’s my big beef, is that they could go BUY beef. Guns and permits and ammo cost a lot more than a steak.

If you need to kill your dinner to survive, you need a gun. Otherwise? No.

People may kill people, but it’s a hell of a lot harder if those people don’t have guns. You don’t see too many mass murders committed by steak knife (I’m not joking). A kid can’t walk into a classroom with an axe and kill 30 people from the doorway, is all I’m saying.
Jacqueline on April 19th, 2007 7:16 pm

PS: I am also a school teacher. I feel perfectly safe teaching here. You could not pay me enough to make me teach in a high school in a country where shootings at schools happen several times a year.
Michelle on April 19th, 2007 7:52 pm

When we first heard the news of the shooting, my first response was to turn to my husband and ask, “and guns are legal, because….?
Schnozz on April 19th, 2007 7:56 pm

If the second amendment were actually to blame for such a tragedy, it wouldn’t be the biggest shooting in history. It’s beyond me how people can make the actions of such a clearly disturbed individual a partisan issue. Sure, if he hadn’t been able to get a gun, everything would have been fine! Right.

I don’t even necessarily think people should have guns (I’m sort of in the shrugging camp who thinks guns can’t possibly be good but also thinks that it’s kind of too late to get rid of them). I just think it’s absurd that people are choosing this occurrence as proof of their political stance.
Ashley on April 19th, 2007 8:00 pm

I grew up around guns and own them, so you would think I would have a straight foward opinion, but I am really unsure of where I stand. . What I do believe is if it weren’t guns it would be something else, possibly more deadly. There is and will always be violence against others. We want our freedom and with that comes consequence, this kid slipped through the system because of the very freedom we desire.
Michelle on April 19th, 2007 8:05 pm

I wish these were my words (I got them from a local website, http://www.yelp.com). They succintly state what the problem with guns is really indicative of…killing, it seems, IS the american way…

“I’ve been thinking about the recent murders in VA and while I personally find them horrific the more I think about it the more I wonder why that is ?

We’re American’s and we kill people, it’s what we do.

We live in fear of North Korea or Iran developing their nuclear ambitions and well we should yet we are the only nation on THE PLANET to has ever actually used a nuclear weapon on other people.

When we were attacked by terrorists they killed 2,973 American’s yet as of today we have sent 3,311 of our own people to die in Iraq plus another 376 in Afghanistan and that is against the back drop of an approximate 60,000 Iraqi dead and a conservative estimate of another 3,000 Afghani’s.

Terrorists killed 2,973 and that was bad, no question. But since then we’ve had a hand in the deaths of 66,687more. On a percentage basis does that qualify as slaughter ?

In our own country during a good year we kill 9 — 10,000 other American’s with guns, a bad year is closer to 15,000 and that’s just with guns mind you, there are a lot of other homicides with knives, blunt instruments, and what have you.

We decry the rogue shooter who kills on a college campus, and yet 37 years ago protesting students were killed on a college campus and the shooters were members of our own military ! (Kent State)

So I don’t know what the problem is ? Do we really abhor murder, and death, or are we just suffering from a colossal case of denial ? We decry senseless killings and yet do more of it internally and externally than any other industrialized nation on earth in most cases by a multiple.

And don’t say “not here.” It’s here and it’s us; there is no “they” or “them.” California is a top 10 state for homicides per capita, and our very own Oakland and San Francisco rank right up there in per capita homicides for the most recent year that statistics were available (FBI 2005).

No, I think it’s time we own up to our legacy. I think we should start by being honest with ourselves because you can’t begin to address a problem if you aren’t willing to admit it exists.

We are Americans, we are a violent and warlike culture and we kill people, both here and abroad, and we kill lots of them. It’s something we do well.

So instead of being shocked at the killings at Virginia State I think from now on I’m going to be surprised, surprised that stuff like this doesn’t happen more often, because be honest, it’s the American way.”
laughing mommy on April 19th, 2007 8:06 pm

After I got married I lived in Canada for three years where there is much more strict gun laws. You can’t go into a store and just leave with a gun. You have to apply for a permit which can sometimes take months, and I think they really check your background (but I’m not postiive how much they check).

It doesn’t help you know. While I lived there people were beaten to death and killed with cross bows. Someone who wants to kill another person will find a way.

This is a true saying… guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Jem on April 19th, 2007 8:10 pm

This hardly applies to NZ where most of us, generally, don’t have guns. I’m glad for it. Theres something horribly romantic about having a gun, and I can understand wanting to protect yourself, but I would rather that guy hadn’t been able to get a gun at all. Plus, I’d rather be a ninja than have a gun.
Diablevert on April 19th, 2007 8:18 pm

I don’t know how I feel about guns myself, quite. But you might want to take a look at “Giving Up the Gun,” in Andre Dubus’ book of essays, _Memoirs from a Movable Chair_. He owned a gun for years, saved a mans life because he had one, and later gave them up because of something that happenned to him. He’s a very good writer.
heather on April 19th, 2007 8:29 pm

my ex-boyfriend, with whom i lived for six years, was and still is strongly pro-gun. prior to meeting him, i would have put myself in the opposite camp. gradually, though, i saw the validity of some of his arguments, which strongly resembled JB’s. i even went to the range a few times with him. so here i am, like so many people, i think, somewhere in the middle. i tend to have very black and white opinions when it comes to politicized issues, and being unsure of this one makes me a bit uncomfortable. i don’t think there is an easy answer. i’ll agree with the commenter above, though: i’d most definitely rather be a ninja than have a gun.
Jane on April 19th, 2007 8:33 pm

“Someone who wants to kill another person will find a way”

I can see what you’re saying – there will always be loose-units who will do whatever it takes, but surely there are a number of deaths that have occurred as a result of a single impassioned moment that wouldn’t have happened had the killer not had such easy access to a deadly weapon.

Then there’s accidental shootings to consider also.

It’s interesting to see how things are different in other countries – sure, there will always be violence but do you need to make it so easy?
Elizabeth on April 19th, 2007 8:34 pm

I too come from a country where guns aren’t accessible and really aren’t a problem. And I prefer it that way. But in the US, it would be virtually impossible to undo the 2nd amenment, or or else radically alter it.

The last encounter I ever had with a gun was when I was eight. My father was an armed police sharpshooter. I went with him a shooting range [just a little kid looking up to her dad, you know...] I was accidentally shot in the arm. So even in a building full of police officers, no one is really safe. I dunno, they just scare me a lot. I don’t think I have any more answers than anyone else, but I wish I did.
Joanne on April 19th, 2007 8:37 pm

It is complicated, you’re right. My husband is more liberal than I am politically but is more pro gun. He thinks we should have one to protect ourselves, but he is worried because we have a child. I never wanted to have a gun until I had a child. I feel sometimes like we are sitting ducks and this little boy is counting on us to take care of him. If someone broke into our house, not only would they get to my son’s room first (it’s at the top of the stairs), but we would have nothing to protect him or us, except a cell phone! We have recently had kind of a crime wave where I live, and I think about it a lot. I really do think that if someone wants to kill someone (or several someones) they are going to do it, regardless of how easy or hard it is to get a gun. I’m not sure what the answer is.
Seattle Suz on April 19th, 2007 8:51 pm

Odd timing to pick up a copy of the North Seattle Herald-Outlook from our branch library the day of the VT shooting. This op-ed piece was written in response to the UW 4/2 murder/suicide. However, I found its sentiments very applicable to current situations as well as those past, especially given the age old argument the pro-gun lobby uses with regard to independently obtained arms.

I’ll leave you with the author’s closing remark, as it is as timely now as ever:
“Gun nuts are just gaga over the Second Amendment, and in their millennial paranoia, they stomp and spit and scream that governmental gun control strikes, unconstitutionally, at the heart of our individual rights. Too bad they fail to read the entirety of that much-ballyhooed amendment.
In any reckoning, it’s impossible to see, by any stretch of logic, how Jonathan Rowan constituted any kind of a well-regulated militia.” -Rick Levin
http://www.zwire.com/site/tab8.cfm?newsid=18192849&BRD=855&PAG=461&dept_id=520834&rfi=6
Amy on April 19th, 2007 8:56 pm

It seems pretty easy to me: don’t make guns illegal, just make it harder to own them. There should be a waiting period, background checks, etc so that people (like Cho) who have been in a mental institution, are not able to get them. I have no doubt that there are plenty of sane, responsible gun-owners out there, but I also have no doubt that there are just as many irresponsible gun-owners too (shooting into the air on fourth of july, anyone?). Also, why in the HELL do we need to sell machine guns etc to the general public? Personally, I would never have a gun in my home and if my husband wanted one we’d have some serious battles over it. Too many kids get killed accidentally, and it doesn’t really matter if you teach your own kid to respect the gun–what happens when their friends come over and want to “play” with it? The common sense laws they have been trying to pass for ages are just that: common sense. Let’s use our brains, people. Limit gun sales. Why the hell is a background check asking too much? When is the NRA going to stop dictating all off our policies?
brid on April 19th, 2007 9:04 pm

it’s a vicious cycle. criminals have guns. you need a gun to protect you from the bad guys with gun. The bad guys with guns need bigger and badder guns to be bigger and badder criminals. You need an even bigger and badder gun to keep up with the bigger and badder criminals. It’s one of those ad infinitem cycles where things spiral into guns becoming easier to buy, easier to shoot, easier to load, just plain easier.

guns shouldn’t be easy. To drive a car requires hours of practice, a written exam, a physical exam–to own a car proof of insurance. To own a gun? far less work. So if you feel that you need to “bear arms”: prove it. Wait longer, pass more extensive requirements, take a test to prove you can use it responsively. It is a weapon. a deadly weapon. no one every argues that it’s not–and it should be treated as such. I don’t think that “the right to bear arms” ever meant the kind of weapons that exist now. I don’t think that the ability to reload faster, the ability to fire bullets more rapidly, the ability to fire more bullets without reloading are protection measures. I think that what constitutes a weapon for civilian use should be strictly defined. I also think possession of a deadly weapon (any one, not just guns) should have greater legal consequences. I don’t care if you’ve never broken any law in your life, if you have a permit for a gun in your home but not to carry one concealed, if you’re a gang-banger making his way…possession should be a bigger legal deal.

and the problem with citing studies of cases where circumstances would have changed had a victim held a gun is that it’s conjecture. Things could have turned out better. Things could have turned out worse. Things could have turned out exactly the same. There’s no way of knowing. People carrying guns outside of law enforcement never makes me feel safer. My carrying a gun wouldn’t make me feel safer. So i don’t carry one. If it makes you feel safer to own a gun, that’s your choice. But obey the law in your state or country (change the law or move if you feel strongly enough to break that law); acknowledge it’s a deadly weapon–and make it less easy.

oh man, I commented ten times more than I intended. I’ve never written this long a blog posting (in fact, this one is exponentially larger than all my other comments together). So I’m submitting it anyway. Sorry! (and thanks for reading all the way through to the end).
Jane on April 19th, 2007 9:20 pm

Oh, one more thing…

Excuse my naive lack-of-gun-knowledge ignorance, but if your sole purpose of having a gun is for self-defense in the home then you’d really need it in your hand at all times while you’re there right? Otherwise the person breaking in waving a gun around would have an unfair advantage. The criminal with the gun is unlikely to knock on the door so as to allow you time to grab your handgun from the bedside drawer so you can be “evens”.

What I’m trying to get at is how often does a gun-owning victim actually even get his/her hands on their own gun when they’re under attack? Probably less often than jilted lovers grab that same gun in a heated moment and do something that they’d probably not do had they not been afforded the opportunity.
Leslie on April 19th, 2007 9:29 pm

As was pointed out, “bear arms” as used in the Bill of Rights refers to an armed militia, not personal gun ownership.

I’ll never forget an episode of *Primetime Live* from some years ago when an interviewer was talking to young kids (about 5-7 years old) about guns, showing some examples of weapons and bullets. These were all kids who had been taught by their parents about the dangers, and how guns should never be touched, and if you see one you should run get an adult and so on. They had exactly the right answer to every question the interviewer asked.

Then she left the room for a minute, asking them to remain in their seats. The minute she was gone they were *all over* those guns, trying to load them (the bullets were purposefully too big to fit) and aiming them at each other. It happened with every group, every age, each sex. It was chilling. I would never *ever* have a handgun in a house with a child.
kiwi on April 19th, 2007 9:43 pm

My boss at work feels the same as JB – that if someone in the classrooms had a gun, then this could’ve been prevented.

His resolution is to give peace officers free tuition to colleges – so that there are people who are required to be responsible with guns in the building.

Personally, i hate this very idea of having “guards” and people who are licensed to kill in a school setting. I’m all for stricter gun regulations (and while I don’t know much about how these things go, if this isn’t doesn’t already exist, then they should be checked up and renewed every few years just to make sure that the owner hasn’t started to slowly lose their mind over time).

On the other hand, I have a history of mental illness, but am a complete pacifist. I just want a firearm against the coming zombie apocalypse and feel that I should be allowed to protect myself against the undead.
sundry on April 19th, 2007 10:38 pm

To Leslie’s comment, specifically the last sentence: I totally respect that viewpoint and choice and I know a lot of parents feel that way. I should clarify that JB has a safe and under no circumstances is anything ever accessible to children.
donna on April 19th, 2007 10:43 pm

I grew up with guns, hunting etc. and then taught my kids about guns, (and fishing too), but honestly, in my family a gun is just a tool, in the same way a hammer is a tool, and yes I understand that you can kill a lot more people at a time with a gun than you would be able to with a hammer. But, and here is the thing, had he not been able to get a gun, this guy would have built several bombs, or malatov cocktails to throw in the rooms, as he had already chained the doors shut. Easier than buying a gun, this guy was determined, crazy, and you can’t really use his actions as an argument pro or anti gun. the gun was just a tool, if it wasn’t that it would have been something else. I carry all the time, actually had more guns than the hubby and he’s a cop, and have had gang bangers shoot up my house and motorhome and the police car three times now, and there’s where I justify having guns in the house, in my car, or on my person. Just like I carry a knife, fix a flat and a cell phone, water, and enough to eat for a couple days in my car. Maybe its a whole different mindset because I live in the wild wild west, or maybe I was just taught that you take care of you and yours, either way, who would you rather have with you in a jam, me, or someone who won’t pick up a gun even to defend themselves? Sorry this kinda shit just gets me on a roll, and I tend to preach, but I tell you, my first thought was the same as JB’s, didn’t anyone on that campus have a gun, even if for no other reason than to lay down a supressing fire?
Katia on April 19th, 2007 11:48 pm

I grew up in a household with guns. I don’t currently own one, but I also don’t own a couch, so make what you will of that. I would own one – either handgun or hunting rifle – without a problem, or fear. Guns, like donna says, are tools, like any other tool. Guns don’t cause violence. Gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem. Before guns existed, there was plenty of violence in the world without them – a handful of box cutters caused mass chaos, and ultimately, mass destruction and terrosim just a few years ago. You don’t need a gun to kill people. You don’t even need a gun to kill a lot of people.

Some of most feared serial killers did not use guns. Kids are beating up homeless people with baseball bats for fun. They don’t need guns. Domestic violence can easily happen without guns.

I don’t believe that eliminating them will eliminate the problems behind them. People who want to cause mass chaos will find other ways to do it. Bombs. Arson. Knifings. And beyond that, guns already ARE illegal to purchase for most of the people we don’t want having them. Criminals are generally not allowed to purchase firearms. Most people convicted of domestic abuse are not allowed. Most people who are forcibly committed to mental institutions /are not allowed/. This already happens, most of the time. Yet, criminals still get their hands on guns, easily. So do other people who are not legally allowed to purchase them.

You might suggest that if the citizen population had fewer guns, criminals would have fewer places to steal them from. Has this worked for the war on drugs? No.

Drugs, like violence, are just a symptom of a problem that goes far beyond what outlawing them should do. We have the right to bear arms for a reason. To protect ourselves – and our country – in times of need. That shouldn’t be revoked just because some people have decided to use them for violence against their fellow man.
Anonymous on April 19th, 2007 11:52 pm

The second amendment was written so long ago it is not even valid anymore. And while we’re interpreting the second amendment to fit our ‘modern’ lifestyles we should also look at all of the amendments in the bill of rights.

Hello first amendment with your free speech, freedom of religion & free press, blah blah. I mean the press has just gone crazy lately and what with all the blogs, Wikipedia, etc you can just basically say anything these days and once it is written we assume it’s true cause we read it on the INTERNET. And don’t get me started on the freedom of religion BS. Jesus and Allah have fueled the deaths of more people than guns & drugs combined!

And this fourth amendment, protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I mean how long ago was that written, basically the same time I think, right? Surely it was written before 911. Now our government should just grant themselves the power of unlimited search and seizure because it’s the only way to protect the population.

I don’t remember any of the other rights, but I am sure they need to be changed – or at least interpreted differently than they were originally intended. Same interpretation process had to happen with the bible; the OLD testament is for Neanderthals, yo.
sooboo on April 19th, 2007 11:54 pm

This is a complicated issue. Have you ever been to the Winchester Mystery House? It literally drove that woman nuts. I have lost two friends from gunshot wounds. One death was ruled accidental and the other was a domestic violence situation. In both cases the guns were bought legally by (incredibly irresponsible or abusive)people with no criminal history. I have also lived in Texas where I met people who were like JB, in that they were responsible people that liked guns to use as a hobby and sport and I had no problem with that. I even had a friend that made his own bullets. I get both sides. I just wish that a person really had to jump through serious hoops to get a gun. I live in L.A., in a middle class neighborhood and I do hear that horrible pop pop once in awhile in the middle of the night. It would be nice if the kind of people that misuse guns or had the potential to, had a lifetime ban from buying guns. How you would screen them, I have no idea, but we should try harder to.
Katia on April 20th, 2007 12:00 am

I would like to add in response to Leslie’s comment, that I grew up where as a child, I was taught how to handle firearms responsibly – not to never ever touch them, not to “run and get an adult” if I saw one, and how bad and dangerous they were and to stay away from them. I was taught that they *could* be dangerous, and that you should never ever point them at anything you did not intend to shoot. By the time my brother was twelve, he owned 2-3 guns, small caliber stuff. Normal for a boy around here. I, too, owned them. We touched guns. We ‘played’ with them by hunting gophers, with BB-guns first, then, when we were older and had proved responsible, with .22 rifles. Mostly without adult supervision. We were not taught to fear them, or to avoid them at all costs. They were not typically locked up in a cabinet. They were out of reach when we were very young, but by the time we were eight or so, we knew how to use them. Properly.

We never had the desire to rush up and play with them and experiment with them because we were taught that they weren’t some forbidden thing of mystery, but just another tool, and one that needed to be used with caution – just like a knife, or a saw, or heck, electricity.

There have been very very few gun accidents in my area, despite the very high percentage of people – even children – owning guns (virtually everyone). The only ones in the last 10-15 years involve booze. There have also been no deliberate shootings. *shrug*
Lizzie on April 20th, 2007 2:16 am

First let me say, hats off to us all for remaining cool-headed in our discussion. This kind of thing has the serious potential to be a red flag to a bull and the whole ‘flame wars’ thing is usually the end result.

I come to the argument from two sides – I have a father who was in the military (Vietnam) and I’m married to a police officer. I grew up knowing my father kept rifles in the house both for the sentimental value (two or three were antiques) and because they were tools to hunt. At one point, my father sold rabbits for a living.

It may be because I was (am!) a girl, and quite a bit younger than my siblings, but the gun thing never appealed to me. The older siblings were all taught how to shoot whether they wanted to or not – a lot of which had to do with demystifying guns and teaching them the safety issues. Take away the ‘forbidden delight’ and it becomes less of a yearning, less of a curiosity – at least that’s the stance my father took. I, like the older kids, was taken out on a couple of occasions and force-fed the safety and mechanical implications of being around guns. I must admit, I neither enjoyed or tolerated it very well, but understood the reasoning behind it. I’m switched-on enough to know that rifles helped to feed us on more than one occasion.

But like others have commented, where I live, the ‘right to bear arms’ isn’t a factor. In 1996, a man by the name of Martin Bryant burst into the Broad Arrow Cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania and killed 35 people. This created a firestorm of political debate and the biggest reform of gun laws in Australia in recent times. Owning a gun of *any* type became infinitely more difficult. My father, who had owned guns since childhood, now had to ‘prove’ his proficiency and safety knowledge. In addition, the government banned a slew of semi-automatic rifles and offered money in a gun buy-back scheme which saw Dad have to surrender two of his three antique guns for money that didn’t adequately cover their sentimental value. To have kept them would have been breaking the law, despite the fact he was one of the ‘good guy’ gun owners and probably one of the more knowledgeable about the inner workings and safety issues given his time in the military. It was a serious upheaval at the time, and hard given my father’s connection to it all, but necessary. And we didn’t have NEAR the gun issues the States had/have. If you get caught carrying a weapon on your person at *any* time outside of military or policing circumstances, and you don’t have a licence for it, you’re in deep trouble.

The ironic thing is that my police officer husband is a very, very good shot and quite enjoys his time training on the firing range. But he is not allowed to bring his work pistol home (employer rules) and I would not allow him to keep any kind of firearm at home. Despite everything, I’m still not comfortable with any of it…
Rebecca on April 20th, 2007 3:36 am

How awful must it be, how truly, staggeringly awful, to live in a country where a person feels they can’t drive around in their car without having a gun in the glove compartment? Catch22. I live in a country where gun ownership is extremely restricted. There is still a certain amount of gun crime, but when I walk down the street the chance of actually meeting someone in possession of a gun is very, very small, I would not trade this for anything.
Gentry on April 20th, 2007 3:51 am

The US is a hunting nation. It’s wrong to outlaw guns used for sport (either target practice or hunting). If guns don’t agree with you, move elsewhere (like France) where there are almost no animals left to hunt and target practice was never embraced with much enthusiasm.

Handguns are illegal here. And that’s the only reason we have so few shootings. (People still hunt boars and stag with knives). Add guns into our culture and we’d have mass murders too, I’m sure.

I don’t have one. I would rather die than fire one, but I don’t think guns should be illegal. I think insane people should be looked after.
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 4:06 am

I agree with JB, it appears. So does my wife.

Guns are tools. They are tools for throwing little pieces of lead and copper at high speeds in relatively straight lines.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It so happens that they are the ONLY tools that puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 250 pound man in a physical confrontation.

They are the only tools that let a wheelchair-bound man have a real opportunity to fight back against a gang of young criminals.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing. With our current educational culture that teaches our young people to duck and cover, to give the mugger what he wants, to call 911 and wait for help and to just push the button on the blue campus emergency phones is teaching them to do just that, to do nothing in the face of evil.

Crime happens. It happens at home, it happens on the street, it happens at school. It ALWAYS will. There will ALWAYS be evil people willing to harm other people to get what they want.

The police, most likely, will not be able to help you. They take many vital minutes (at best) to respond and they are under NO legal obligation to provide protection for any individual. Their job is to protect “the community” at large…and to arrive after the fact to collect reports and evidence.

We, as responsible citizens, owe it to ourselves, our families and our communities to FIGHT BACK against evil every time it rears it ugly head. Self defense is a basic human right.

You (the anti-gun commenters here and elsewhere) may not want to use a gun to defend yourself. That’s fine, it’s your choice. But don’t dare tell me that I will be safer by letting the government take away my most effective tool for defense.
Deanna on April 20th, 2007 5:26 am

I LIVE IN TEXAS. We have guns here.

Hubby has 2 guns. Has had one since he was 8 and the other since early teens. He grew up in a rural area where that’s what boys were taught to do- handle gus safely and with normalcy.
My dad was a 26 year lifer in the Navy so guns- although not in our household- were understood and normalized.

But today with our kids things are so different. Our 9 year old is Autistic and we had to explain guns to him (and we have an officer explain it again each time we get a chance). Bro In Law is in law enforcement and carries a gun daily to protect and serve so when we go visit him, he helps with this.

I ask about guns before my sons go on playdates. I think way too many parents DO NOT ask about this because of whatever reasons. I am open (when asked) that we have 2 but they are in gun bags in the back of our closet- with trigger locks and locks on the bags and the keys are in a different room. But the only parents who have asked are ones I have asked first.

Funny side note: We had a big coral snake on the back patio and I had to keep an eye on it while it took hubby FOREVER to get the dang gun to shoot it. I’m outside hopping around freaking out trying to keep the cats away from this thing when the cat who caught it just wants her toy back.

Me- I have a paint ball gun. Yeah- I’m tough. I keep a loaded paintball gun on the top shelf in the pantry with the cylinder reader to screw in so I can use it to chase off wild dogs. We had a problem with them killing our cats last year and this was my solution. A gun. A nonleathal gun but a gun.
Deanna
kim on April 20th, 2007 5:27 am

I am a gun owner. No assault rifles (though my ex-military hubby would just love that) but a pistol and a few shot guns. Some of them are extremely old, handed down through many generations. My parents had guns, my brother hunts, but no one ever showed me how to shoot one. Just how to leave it the heck alone. It was always locked up in some dark corner in their closet and i was never tempted to go “play with it” They scared the crap out of me when explaining what it was. I don’t feel that was the right way to go about it, but I guess back then taking your kid to the range wasn’t exactly common place.

The first time I shot a gun was only about seven years ago. I felt the overwhelming potential of what I was holding in my hands, which made me intent on learning the safest and most responsible way to handle a weapon.

I like to equate the “take all the guns away” argument with the drug war. This is relevant in ANY country. Are drugs illegal? Yes. How many people in just this country are plagued with ILLEGAL drug addiction? Umpteen bazillion. If someone wants something, whether it is legal or not, they will get it. With this in mind, I will enjoy my privilege to have my LEGAL, REGISTERED guns to protect myself my husband and now most importantly my son.
Christina on April 20th, 2007 6:04 am

I have to agree – anti gun all the way… With that said isn’t there a big difference between using a gun to hunt out in the wild and using a gun to slaughter innocent victims because someone is angry at the world?

Additionally, do we really want teachers, administrators and janitors carrying guns around schools in order to protect people against the above mentioned mentally unstable angry people?

What about taking care of our mentally ill? SO freaking many people pointed out the warning signs this young man had something wrong with him but not one of them could get it together to help him, take care of him. What about his parents and family? What about law enforcement? What about the very professor who called numerous times? Can we not get out of our little lives to help those with issues? Is this because our issues are so much bigger?

Additionally, the right to bear arms as it is written in our constitution was written in a different time. There were no automatic weapons that fired multiple times, that kill in that fashion. They were no less scary but they were also being used in a different fashion.

Finally, the glorification of guns is seen everywhere. We see it in movies and literature. We do not realize that while you and I might pass by these images with barely a second glance there are others out there who do not.

Media is also to blame. Okay, I was also fascinated by Anna Nicole but by god why in the world are we allowing this young man’s clear mental illness to be aired in public. As we all know other people are out there going ‘yeah man I want that fame – I want to be MORE famous then him. I am going to do this EVEN better.’

SO sadly the right to bear arms is a great theory but in practice in this day and age it needs to be better controlled and regulated. I am not saying restrict it from everyone but find a way to take care of the nation as a whole and also remember to have empathy for people with mental illness… take care of the community around you no matter what. Remember, it takes a village to raise a child.
lea on April 20th, 2007 6:16 am

My partner and I were raised on completely different planets when it comes to guns. She has never physically touched a gun and I received my first as a gift at the age of 12. Our family used guns for hunting and we were taught from an early age to respect guns – while owning a real life gun was acceptable we were not permitted to have toy guns of any kind. My father was an excellent teacher and we never had any problems with the guns in our house – guns were dangerous, serious, and were not toys and I still feel that way today.

Until recently, I would have welcomed guns into my house – I have several at my parent’s house which have a very sentimental value to me and they probably would have remained locked up and unused. However, my grandfather committed suicide last week (with a gun) and now I am finding that I despise them because of what they can do. Like everything though, guns exist for a reason and, because they last so long, they have the potential of being handed down from generation to generation. People should see and use guns as tools with a very specific purpose.
Susie on April 20th, 2007 6:16 am

Wow. I just have to commend you and your readers. I find it very encouraging that, even with the relative anonymity provided by the internet, this has not developed into a knock-down, drag-out, name-calling flame-war. This is a thoughtful presentation and a civilized discussion about a difficult topic, one in which people are understandably very emotionally invested. There’s some great food for thought here… Keep up the good work!
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 6:35 am

Just to clarify some things that some posters seem to be misunderstanding:

The VT killer did not use any automatic weapons. He used two SEMI-automatic handguns.

He was judged to be in need of mental help, but he was never committed against his will. This is why he was able to legally purchase his guns in VA.

Automatic weapons (aka machine guns) fire more than one bullet when the trigger is pressed. Semi-automatic weapons fire only one bullet with each pull of the trigger.

Manufacturing, registration, and ownership of machine guns is legal, but VERY tightly regulated in the United States. One must pay a special $200 tax, get a form signed by one’s local police chief and get the paperwork approved by the BATFE. No new machine guns have been legally produced since the passage of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Only registered machine guns produced before 1986 may be transferred between private owners and the paperwork and $200 tax must be paid each time the guns change hands. The BATFE must also be notified when a machine gun owner wishes to transport their registered weapon across state lines for any reason. Since there are no new machine guns on the market, the existing transferable guns are very very expensive due to the finite supply and the nearly infinite demand. The absolute cheapest machine guns are at least $3000 these days. Full size, military type machine guns typically cost over $20,000 and some belt fed and crew-served weapons are well into six figures.. So, contrary to what one German newspaper published, it is NOT easier to get a machine gun than a drivers license.

Please don’t confuse machine guns and automatic weapons with semi-automatic guns. The terms are not interchangeable.
ang on April 20th, 2007 6:48 am

Ditto, Aunt Linda.
Amy on April 20th, 2007 7:03 am

JB’s feeling is that if someone in one of those Virginia Tech classrooms had been armed, the shooter could have been brought down before so much damage happened. Which isn’t to say he believes students should be carrying weapons to their classes (but maybe teachers should have the option?).>>

With all due respect, that’s exactly what it implies. If he/they don’t mean that “if only” students had brought guns to their classes, then what? They would ask the shooter to just wait a minute so they could run to their dorms and get their guns and stop him? Either way, it’s an awful, awful proposition.
CBO on April 20th, 2007 7:14 am

Well, it’s interesting to see all the different points of view on this.

For me, the issue has little or nothing to do with pro-gun/anti-gun. For me, the issue is simply one of being able to protect myself and my family. Take politics out of it. To me this is about my family. They are my life. Everything I do I do so they can be happy and grow and be fulfilled. If that means giving my daughter organic milk so she doesn’t get shot full of hormones at 18 months, then so be it. If that means driving my wife to work everyday, because she works downtown and her company’s parking garage has no security, then so be it. If that means teaching my daughter than an apple is a better snack then a Big Mac, then so be it. If that means carrying a gun, then so be it.

The bottom line is that the world today is a dangerous place, no matter how it looks on it’s facade. I live in a nice, mature neighborhood. Far from the stereotypical “local” crime-areas. Nice houses, big lawns. Our neighbors are all older than us and have been in the same homes for years. We have a firestation less than a quarter mile from our home. The local police station is just a few blocks further than that. It’s a little slice of suburban heaven.

Yet, despite that just this past Christmas, a bunch of methheads pulled into the driveway of a neighbor, kicked the door down without warning and tied up the family and robbed them. I should mention the sexual assault on the teenage daughter and the permanent disfiguring damage done to the wife. The family had an alarm and it did go off when the door was kicked in. The police? It took them 32 minutes to get there. The bad guys were long gone by then.

Do I wish to live in a world where guns don’t exist? You bet your ass. However, the fact remains that I don’t and I never will. Human nature being what it is, economic pressures being what they are, modern “the world revolves around me” society being what it is, it is inevitable that shit is going to happen.

When it does, I’d prefer to think that I’d have a small edge to fight back with. Maybe having a gun wouldn’t help me at 2am when someone kicks in my door. I don’t know, I’ve never had it happen. What I do know is that I would prefer to have the option to try to defend myself and not have to depend on others who have no vested interest in defending you other than a paycheck.

Do I have a gun? Yes. However, because I have a brain, it stays locked up in a safe bolted under the bed when I’m at home and not carrying. I have a daughter I love and wouldn’t want her to hurt herself. When I go out during the day I put it on and it stays with me. At night, if I was fortunate enough to have 5 seconds warning I could open the safe and have something to depend my family with in about 3 seconds. As others have said, the gun is a tool, albeit a deadly tool that I choose to use to protect my family. Bad guys are going to get weapons legally or illegally. It makes no difference. They will have them. To think otherwise is pedantic and juvenile. I simply choose to level the playing field with the proper equipment.

What irritates me about this whole issue is the vitriol that many of those who are anti-gun have towards those who do choose to use them. It amazes me that so many people who are anti-gun BECAUSE of fear that their child will be hurt, think nothing of taking their child everyday to McDonalds for a McFatty burger every freaking day. Or push them like maniacs into playing football until one day their childs knee gives out and are crippled the rest of their life. Or put their 6 year old into beauty contests dressed like a teenager hooker, potentially exposing them to pervs. I could go on and on.

It’s easy for someone to say they would never use a gun or don’t believe in them. 99.9% of those who say that have never been in a situation where they needed to truly defend themselves. If you took that same person and put them in a situation where they were attacked, raped and their family hurt and I can promise you they would have a sudden about-face later. What most of them consider to be principles are really only ideals that haven’t been tested under fire. If those kind of people really, truly believed that they should never defend their family or household without a weapon then they should put a sign up in door that says “UNARMED HOME.” When people who are anti-gun begin doing that, then maybe, just maybe I’ll think they truly believe in their principles.
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 7:21 am

Guns are used far, far more often to stop crimes than to commit crimes. Estimates range from 500,000 up to 2.5 million times per year in the US. Unfortunately, those stories don’t make good TV.

Here’s one site that attempts to catalog many of the published accounts of the GOOD things that gun ownership allows:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
CBO on April 20th, 2007 7:30 am

Without meaning to sound over-the-top I have to reply to something Amy said above. Amy, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. I mean well.

I’ll quote her so you don’t have to go back up:

—AMY’S COMMENT—
>JB’s feeling is that if someone in one of those Virginia Tech classrooms had >been armed, the shooter could have been brought down before so much >damage happened. Which isn’t to say he believes students should be carrying >weapons to their classes (but maybe teachers should have the option?).>>

With all due respect, that’s exactly what it implies. If he/they don’t mean that “if only” students had brought guns to their classes, then what? They would ask the shooter to just wait a minute so they could run to their dorms and get their guns and stop him? Either way, it’s an awful, awful proposition.
—-

I can’t speak for JB as I haven’t met him but I do know exactly what he means here. The bottom line is that in hindsight it’s almost impossible to play the coulda/would/shoulda game. Having said that however, the truth is if SOMEONE had been ARMED and AVAILABLE it is a high likely the shooter could have been stopped much earlier. Should it have a been a student armed? Should it have been a teacher? I think what JB was saying is that he doesn’t know which but that someone armed could have stopped it. I’ll put myself out on a limb here and say this:

There is no question in my mind that if a teacher, security guard or yes, even a student had been armed and available that day Cho could have been stopped earlier. If you play a game of football against the Chicago Bears, would you put your local high school’s band geeks on the field? (No offense meant to any band geeks.) No, you would put the meanest, toughest players you could find. Likewise, if you are going up against a gunman who is intent on killing, do you throw roses and good thoughts towards him? No, you meet him with a level playing field.

People attacking JB’s point of view will generally say “Let the guards do their job. Don’t arm teachers or students.” Nice thought, but not real practical. Va Tech’s campus is bigger than some small towns. They have a couple of hundred security officers to handle 27,000 students. They are spread a bit thin. Where were the guards? Do I think it’s smart to let students be armed in school. No, I don’t but there has to be another way to protect them for when the security and/or guards aren’t able to. Does that mean arming teachers? Maybe. Have you noticed how few school shootings happen in Israel? Why you ask? Because ever since the Intifidah attacked an grade school in 1988, ALL teachers are armed and trained in how to use their weapons. It’s really funny how in a country where both sides have dozens of killings a day, no one is stupid enough to mess with a school and longer. I wonder why? Could it be … gasp … the deterrent of armed force? Why heavens, what a thought!
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 7:57 am

In response to Amy’s comment about guns in class or not in class:

School shooter Luke Woodham was stopped in the middle of his killing spree in 1997 when Vice Principal Joel Myrick left the school, retrieved his own pistol from his truck parked off campus, returned to the school and confronted him.

Read the story here:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 8:01 am

Another article on Myrick:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/HeroesOutlawed.htm
CBO on April 20th, 2007 8:29 am

One more comment and I’ll quit, I promise.

I found one posters comment about gun ownership interesting. In a nutshell, they commented that they have no problems with gun ownership, they just wish it was harder to get a gun.

Nice thought. Really. I wish it was harder for 16 yr olds to get cars and drive too. Afterall, more people die in the US each year by far in accidents caused by reckless driving (especially among teenagers) then those who are killed by guns.

To buy a car all you need is a license and cash. The license is a joke because generally the DMV will pass out licenses to anyone who can park straight and stop completely at a stopsign. In 1 hour you can get a license and walk across the street and buy a new car that is 3500 pounds of killing machine. In my state, to be allowed to carry a weapon, you have to have 38 hours of course instruction.

I hate being political about guns, but they can outlaw guns when they outlaw cars.
Danielle on April 20th, 2007 8:44 am

I stopped reading the comments after laughing mommy because there were just so many and because I am Canadian. Our laws here do make a big difference. While people are killed here with guns – and machetes and other weapons – on a per capita basis we don’t have anywhere near the number of murders as the United States does. In our largest city of 2.5 million people about 60 people will lose their lives to gun fire in a year. I believe the statistics I’ve heard about comparable American cities is three times that. I feel empathy and compassion when I see news coverage of school shootings in the States.

But I don’t know want the difference is between Canada and the US (or most other Western nations) that things of that magnitude don’t happen here aside from your right to bear arms. (Hunting is a whole other thing that I don’t agree with, but if someone wants to own a gun to hunt that’s different). I fear this comment is not coming off the way I want, I’m not trying to say we are better here. I just can’t imagine living in a world where people are encouraged to carry guns (to school no less!) to protect themselves. Bottomline – I believe gun control does save lives and makes people safer.
Amanda on April 20th, 2007 8:50 am

JB and my husband share the same views. I do to. We also have a closet full of (unloaded and well-locked up!) guns. Unfortunately, he’s been so busy that he’s now more of a collector than an avid shooter.

I am pro-2nd amendment simply because criminals don’t obey laws. We can make guns almost impossible to purchase and it won’t solve our gun violence problems; statistically (see England), it will only make them worse. It just takes guns away from law-abiding GOOD GUYS. I WANT the good guys to have guns.

The other reason is completely selfish – the police can’t protect you. They show up after the fact and file a report. When the shit gets really ugly (see Hurricane Katrina and the fact that New Orleans has strict gun control) they run away with their tails between their legs. I sleep better with a locked and loaded gun under our mattress.

Long before we pass any new gun laws, I think it’s important that we actually enforce the ones we have. Literally THOUSANDS of felons apply for gun permits every year and are turned away. Why are they not then pursued by law enforcement!?!?! This is a HUGE problem and such a big NO DUH to me. It just goes to show that most gun laws are passed to make people feel better, not to enact any real change.
Sarah on April 20th, 2007 8:54 am

When was the last time someone burst into a classroom or office building and bludgeoned dozens of people to death with a baseball bat?

How many criminals are shot by a homeowner protecting their family, versus how many people are shot by criminals?

It’s true that people kill people, but I just can’t think of a good reason to make it easier for them to do it. And sometimes guns purchased for self defense become part of the problem.
Susan on April 20th, 2007 9:08 am

I hate to sound repetitive, but my husband and I also have disparate views on guns.

He has a gun locker full of shotguns and rifles back at his mother’s place in our hometown. We are both from the country and his family raised him as a hunter; although, now he’s much more of a fisher and hasn’t been hunting in about six years and has no plans to go in the near-future. We live about six hours away from “home” and I’ve convinced him to keep the guns back at his mom’s place for the past few years. Right now we live in a small rental house while we pursue professional degrees and there’s just no room for a big, bulky gun locker. I’m working on getting him to sell a few and dwindle down his collection to just one or two. I know that in the next couple of years when set up shop somewhere semi-permanently he’ll want to bring all the guns to the house.

I completely trust his gun handling experience. He’s one of the most careful and thoughtful people I have ever met when it comes to safety. The problem is I don’t trust myself and I certainly don’t trust third parties who may, or may not, be invited guests in my home. I’ve gone to a shooting range with him a few times, but every time I pulled the trigger, I’d feel a rush of panicky adrenaline and horror. Handling weaponry is just not instinctive to me. To be honest, I don’t *want* to become desensitized to the power of a firearm. I’m a jumpy person and I regularly worry that someone is lurking around outside, ready to break down the door and do unspeakable damage to my family and home. Maybe I’ve seen too many A&E true crime stories or too many horror movies. The fact is, about once every couple of months I wake up to a startling sound and make my husband go check out the house and, thankfully, he usually finds that the damn cat has knocked over a picture frame or book once again. I fear that if there was a handgun next to the bed, one of us would wake up in the middle of the night hearing something and grab the gun and start shooting in the dark. Poor kitty, right?

My husband went out of town this weekend; I haven’t spent the night alone in this town since we moved here. I’ll admit, I was so on edge last night that I left at least one light on in every room and the TV going in the living room, and had the bat beside my bed while I slept. I told my husband about it today and he said he’d bring home one of his guns or we’d go next week and buy a handgun to keep in the nightstand (we have no kids). No thanks. Uh, maybe we’ll just get a metal bat to replace the wooden one?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not completely anti-gun; I think it’s unreasonable and unlikely to ban all firearms from the American society. I am, however, very strongly in favor of stricter gun control. Living in a city where there is a huge crime problem, especially due to gangs, it freaking scares the sh*t out of me to think about how easy it is for anyone to walk into Wal-mart and come out soon after with a firearm! My husband’s mom called us the morning of the VA Tech shootings and made a comment about how “we really need more people with concealed carry licenses because if one of those kids had a gun in his book bag then they could have shot him before he killed so many others.” I just can’t fully buy this argument. We *need* gun-free zones, we *need* more restrictive and intrusive background checks, we *need* longer waiting periods and mass weapons registration, we *need* to make it impossible for those with a criminal history or the mentally ill to get guns. I hate to discriminate against those who have problems or made mistakes in their past, but sometimes we have to do a balancing test with such crucial issues. Our society is in crisis. That violence is engrained in the American people (more so than other cultures) is a really strong argument.

Hopefully, within the next five years, my husband and I will be parents; if I’m this worried about guns in our society without worrying about a child, I cannot image what all the parents out there are going through. My heart goes out to them for their endless worries, just as it does for all the victims of firearm violence and their survivors.
Susan on April 20th, 2007 10:29 am

Jane said: “Excuse my naive lack-of-gun-knowledge ignorance, but if your sole purpose of having a gun is for self-defense in the home then you’d really need it in your hand at all times while you’re there right? Otherwise the person breaking in waving a gun around would have an unfair advantage. The criminal with the gun is unlikely to knock on the door so as to allow you time to grab your handgun from the bedside drawer so you can be “evens”.

I wholeheartedly agree.

My husband and his brother were recently held at gunpoint in our home in an invasion-style attempted robbery in broad daylight. The men followed my brother-in-law up our driveway and pushed him right through our front door. Hearing the commotion the dogs were making brought my husband running from the back of the house where he was stunned to find two strange men our foyer and a gun to his brother’s head. The dogs did their job by barking, snarling and nipping at the men who thankfully fled the scene before anyone was hurt or anything was taken. It makes my physically sick to think of what *could* have happened had one single thing gone differently.

The incident has messed with his head a lot. He’s always been absolutely anti-gun, but now thinks he wants to have one in the house. But Jane is absolutely right…even if we *had* a gun in the house, there is no way it would have done a single bit of good. My husband certainly wouldn’t be “packing” while lazily watching television in the safety of his own home. And since the men were already armed and in absolute control, the chances of them going through our home and finding our gun, thus becoming *doubly* armed is pretty high. At the end of the day, our dogs were a far better deterrant than any gun.

I don’t know what the answer is…like everyone else, I’m angered, sickened, disgusted by the massacre at VT and similar incidents across the country. It makes my ill to think that we feel the need to arm ourselves against each other, yet the reality is we live in a society rife with violence, crime and a legal system that is so full of loopholes it shocks me anyone is ever actually sent to jail.

I’m rambling now, but just wanted to chime in on this truly complicated issue.
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 10:36 am

Susan said:
“My husband certainly wouldn’t be “packing” while lazily watching television in the safety of his own home.”

What happened to your husband and his brother is the reason I (and many others I know) DO carry my gun on my body at home. It goes on with the pants in the morning and stays there, just like my wallet, my watch, my pocket knife, etc…

We don’t get to decide when crime or tragedy will visit us. We can only try to be prepared with a good plan, good skills, and good gear.
Lisa S. on April 20th, 2007 10:46 am

The bottom line is that in hindsight it’s almost impossible to play the coulda/would/shoulda game.

Exactly, and I wish people would stop doing it. Unless you’ve actually been in a situation where a gun-wielding maniac has burst into the room shooting, your judgment of what other people should have done is suspect at best.

I was at a party where a stranger with a grudge against the host came in, shot a few people, then fled again. People with guns often have a first-mover advantage: they have the element of surprise on their side, and they are the ones setting down the terms for confrontation. It is comforting to fantasize about regaining control of a situation by returning fire, but there is a world of difference between fantasizing and reacting after your pal goes down from the bullet he just took to the knee.
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 10:54 am

Armed Students stop law school shooter:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3117
m on April 20th, 2007 11:21 am

I haven’t read all the comments, so please excuse me if what I say has already been said.

I live in Canada, so the culture of guns is quite different than where you are. I did grow up in a house with guns. My parents were avid hunters and I remember having rifles just leaning up by the front door at times during hunting season. Rifles never scared me because I had seen them in use and knew their purpose. That said, when I was quite young I remember snooping in my parents’ room (very bad, I know) and I came across a hand pistol in my father’s bedside table. It sent chills down me and it altered the way I saw him. I was suddenly quite afraid of him and no longer trusted him. For me, having watched so much tv, hand guns were for shooting people and therefore evil, in my young mind.

I have never shot a gun and never plan to.

What I don’t understand about the “right to bear arms” is the argument that a person needs to be protected against fellow citizens. Doesn’t that breed a culture of fear? Of distrust? That’s not the environment in which I would want to live and raise my family.
CBO on April 20th, 2007 11:32 am

>Exactly, and I wish people would stop doing it. Unless you’ve actually been in a >situation where a gun-wielding maniac has burst into the room shooting, your >judgment of what other people should have done is suspect at best.

Actually, I have been in situations where a “gun-wielding maniac” has been loose. Many of them in fact. I travel quite often to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the surrounding countries for work and often guns come into the equation. In the areas we go for my job, the police won’t even let us on the pass roads unless we are armed. We’ve been shot at. I’ve woken up to gunfire outside my window. I’ve been in villages passing out medicine and supplies when fundamentalists would start cracking off AK’s at us because their afraid we’ll gain the villagers trust and they’ll lose control of them. I’ve had my office and apt overseas bombed. Why? Because the bad guys have guns. IN many of those countries they have stricter gun laws then we do in the states. In Pakistan, in order to get a gun, legally, you must visit the SP, DP and then city council. (SP=Chief of Local Police, DP=Chief of State Police.) Then you still have to prove your need. Only 1 out of 10 are approved. The cost is around 500USD for everything. That’s before you even buy a gun.

Contrast that with my current state of Oklahoma. All you need is a license, proof that you are old enough and some money. Yet the death by gun rate is still vastly higher by proportion in Pakistan than here. Hmmmmm….

Do you honestly think that the bandits who hide out to attack us, the ones who hate us doing our humanitarian work, the ones the police MAKE us arms ourselves against, have gone and applied for their weapons thru the proper, legal channels? If so, please contact me, I have a wonderful bridge in Brooklyn I think you’d just love.

The bottom line is that regardless of how much you control guns thu legal (ie rules/regulations) there are still going to be criminals who get them illegally. When is the last time you heard a gangbanger say “Yo, bought me a boomstick at Kmart, dawg. Blue light special, then went and got me and the boys some lawn furniture.”

Criminals don’t buy their weapons at Kmart. They buy their guns under the table. Guys like Cho that bought them legally in the manner they did, bought them that way because their weren’t YET criminals. You can’t stop people like that because there is usually little or no warning of what is coming. The only thing you can do is prepare/arm yourself sufficiently to defend yourself when they do snap.
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 11:39 am

M said:
“What I don’t understand about the “right to bear arms” is the argument that a person needs to be protected against fellow citizens. Doesn’t that breed a culture of fear? Of distrust? That’s not the environment in which I would want to live and raise my family.”

What world do you live in where people are never attacked for no reason?

You can’t wish evil men out of existance.

I don’t expect anything bad to happen to me or those I care about. But, if it does, I’m at least a little bit prepared. I carry a gun and I don’t have to live in fear. I don’t live in fear because I have a plan and the tools to carry it out if anyone ever tried to hurt me or the people I care about.

If someone tried to take your kid from you on the sidewalk, what would/could you do about it?

Crime doesn’t just happen to “other people” no matter how much we pretend otherwise.
Ben on April 20th, 2007 12:06 pm

I’m an advocate of gun control. I have a friend who subscribes to the philosophy “an armed society is a polite society.” It’s an understandable but impractical solution to a problem that will always exist. The bitter pill to swallow is that a free society is not always a safe society. Thank God, campus shoot outs don’t happen very frequently; once is one time too many. The rifle assault at UT, the Kent State shootings, Columbine, and the recent massacre at VPI are all reminders that we sit on the edge of a fragile precipice. We all look back and ask, what could have been done to prevent this disaster? Or, what would I have done had I been there? We want to retroactively erase it. We’re all very sad, frightened, and reluctant to admit that none of us can know what tomorrow will bring.

My name is Mr. Downer, btw. I’ll be playing all week.
victoria on April 20th, 2007 12:37 pm

More guns in circulation means more killing. It’s that simple. As a lawyer who studies statutes all the time, I can tell you there is no way to draft a law that could possibly effectuate JB’s apparent desire that guns would only (or even primarily) be put into the hands of rational, sane, sensible people who are guaranteed always and only to use them in a serious and thoughtful spirit, accurately, appropriately, in total sobriety, with a perfectly cool head, without any mistakes of aim or judgment, and only against other human beings in self-defense. The law just cannot do that. The law simply cannot segregate the population into two groups, those who can, and those who cannot, make mistakes, and then permit guns only to the latter group. If guns are in circulation then children, drunks, angry people, and fools will have access to them. If guns are not in circulation, they won’t. All the law can do is keep guns out of circulation.

The benefits of allowing gun ownership (”Guns are fun!”) are trivial compared to the costs to human life.
Bianca on April 20th, 2007 1:12 pm

You know I’m as liberal as they come. I, too, wish that guns didn’t exist but the fact is they do. I’ve only been shooting once and it was over five years ago, but the people I did target practice with were very big on safety and respect. Since then, I’ve come to the conclusion that people should be allowed to own guns. I’m all for gun-control and extremely thorough background checks (Cho should have never been allowed to own based on his mental instability) but I’m completely with those people who say if they were illegal, people would still find ways to get them and that could prove more dangerous, just like abortions.

San Francisco passed a ban on firearms (which I vehemently opposed) not too long ago and people were required to turn in their guns by a certain date. The thought of this was so scary to me because I was sure that not everyone was going to turn their guns in and obviously the people who didn’t were probably the ones who really should.

I know it’s cliche but I firmly stick by the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” mantra. JB is proof of this. He’s someone who’s grown up with guns and owns a gun and occasionally fires guns yet I’d be willing to be that he’s probably never killed a person.

It’s not a gun problem, it’s a society problem.
CBO on April 20th, 2007 2:00 pm

I get what Victoria means by her black and white assessement of gun-control. She is right. More guns do mean more opportunity for people to be hurt. However, as a lawyer she is looking at it from only one side. The side of the law.

IF people who follow her idealogy were to effectively outlaw guns completely in the USA, which I’m sure is something all of us would applaud at face-value, all they would ensure is that people who follow the law will be the only ones incapable of having a gun. Sure there would be hardly any risk of someone or some child accidently being killed with a parents weapon. Or some equally tragic thing. THose risks would lessen. However, the risk that you will be attacked in your home would go up an equal amount. Why would any criminal fear attacking you or your home knowing that you will not defend yourself with equal force? The police? Laughable. My uncle is a sheriff in a decent sized town in northern Illinois. The average response time from 911 call to trooper arriving? 19 minutes.

In Chicago, the average is double that. In the town I live in right now, the average time is 17 minutes. In 17 minutes you would be dead, raped, maimed or bludgeoned. I would rather take the responsibility of owning a gun, keeping my child safe from it and being able to protect myself for those 17 minutes than trust a guy who can’t make it 4 miles down the road in 17 minutes.

Not to mention the obvious fact that there is no law that ever kept a criminal from getting a gun if he truly wanted it.

Why? Well, Victoria could explain it better than I can but the gist is that laws only apply to those who follow them. Unless we choose to live in a draconian, facist land the simply fact is that you cannot enforce anti-gun laws against criminals. Criminals, not adhering to the social contract, tend to ignore laws. Oh, heavens … really!? Smuggling, the black market, etc are all things that the “criminal” will use to fulfill his will even if guns are outlawed for the lawabiding.

So, the choice simply becomes this:
Do you truly believe the authorities can protect you in your time of need?
Do you truly believe that they will place their lives on the line to take the bullet for you?
Do you truly believe that the police will be at your door 30 seconds after the methheads kick it in?
Do you truly believe that the police will be there immediately when your next door neighbor’s pitbull grabs your child’s neck in its jaws and starts shaking them?
Do you truly believe that the police will make it to you fast enough when you are at the park and some perv tries to run and grab one of your children while you are occupied 20 feet away pushing your other child on the swing?
Do you truly believe that the police will stop your ex-husband in time when he comes, drunk or high and kicks in your door because he wants to settle the score for some ancient argument?
Do you truly believe the police will be there waiting to stop him when the mugger rips open your door at the supermarket and carjacks you, driving off with your 11 months old child still strapped in the car seat?

Do you believe those things? If you truly do, then please do not buy a gun. Trust your local police to take care of things for you. Then if one day, one of those things happens, make sure you don’t sue them. After all, you chose to put your faith in THEIR ability, regardless of what it was, to protect you. Do you trust the police to take care of you? Terrific, then raise your taxes and actually pay cops enough to attract good men and women and triple the police force. Oh, wait, you mean you’d rather pay them nothing (gotta have that new gucci) and still demand that they wait outside your home 24/7 to hold your hand? Oops, can’t have it both ways you know.

If you don’t believe, even just one of those questions. Do whatever you feel comfortable with to protect yourself. Take responsibility for yourself and your family. Don’t depend on the largess of others to take care of you.

That what is all about, gun/no gun, pro/anti, whatever. It boils down to personal responsibility.
kim on April 20th, 2007 2:55 pm

Personal responsibility left at the same time as being politically correct arrived. (To the detriment of some of our own freedoms. Sucks.) I have to say I have the utmost respect for everyone’s opinions here. As so succinctly put by Susie, people remaining respectful has made this a delightful read.
sarah on April 20th, 2007 3:04 pm

Linda, you have a gift for taking extremely sensitive subjects and treating the many facets of them with respect. It’s really admirable.

No comment on guns except that they, and all they represent in our society, really leave a bad taste in my mouth.
mzmtg on April 20th, 2007 3:22 pm

Well, then get the gun out of your mouth and hit the range!

Guns are for shooting, not eating.

:)
Melanie on April 20th, 2007 3:43 pm

This is such a hard topic, like the death penalty, for me. It’s not one I’ve got a black or white response to, except that viscerally I can’t stand guns. They scare the crap out of me and I won’t have one in my house because my best friend killed herself with one when we were teenagers. Not that that makes all guns bad, it just makes the idea of guns plus kids too scary for me to deal with, even though it wasn’t an accident or anything. But I can definitely see the other side, where guns protect people and could feasibly save lives. I read a really good article about gun control in Playboy a while back that made me think more about this issue, but I never ended up deciding how I felt. I guess it’s an issue that, for me, is secondary to a lot of other issues so I sort of vote for those that are key and if gun control goes one way or the other with that candidate, that’s how it goes.
Alyson on April 20th, 2007 6:38 pm

No handguns in our house, just rifles and shotguns (my men folk are bird hunters). Everything is locked up in a very complicated to open combination gun safe. That does not mean that all my sons (including my NINE year old) have not been though hunter safety classes – ALL of them have, and toy guns are FORBIDDEN in our house. My in-laws do not share our toy gun prohibition, but they know that at our house, all guns are treated as the real deal. The only exception is the wildly colored and ridiculously shaped water guns. Anyone who would mistake one of those for a real gun has a screw loose. I believe you can raise a child with guns in the house, but it is a conscious decision for parents to raise a child with gun safety awareness (and that awareness has to be total, and the parents have to be vigilant). You and JB have made that decision, you just have to follow through. I am also up-front with other parents about there being firearms in our house, under lock and key! After that, it is their decision.
Leslie on April 21st, 2007 3:09 am

>>>I should clarify that JB has a safe and under no circumstances is anything ever accessible to children.

Truly, it never crossed my mind that you wouldn’t have everything in some way out of reach; JB is obviously a responsible gun owner — as are *most* gun owners. I certainly didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
Lesley on April 21st, 2007 3:33 am

Don’t know if blockquotes work here but here’s a quote:

Comparisons Between Canada and the United States (2000)

Studies have also compared the rates of death from firearms in Canada with those in the United States. One of the most well-known studies was a comparison of Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. More recently, the costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries were compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States and $195 per resident in Canada.10

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. Handguns have required licensing and registration in Canada since the 1930s. Ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns.17,18 Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few people (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for “self-protection.” This is only possible if an applicant can prove that his or her life is in danger and the police cannot protect the person. As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 77 million. Although there are other factors affecting rates of murder, suicide and unintentional injury, a comparison of data in Canada with US data suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is slightly higher (1.7 times) than that in Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate (Table 1).

and, from a 2005 report by Statistics Canada

Gun deaths in Canada have declined, according to Statistics Canada, and are far fewer per capita than in the US.

In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.

Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada’s, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada.

But even as Canada’s rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says.

Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says.

——————

Although a few Canadians own guns (most of them law enforcement officials and rural folks, as well as collectors), Canadians are just not into guns, period. I have yet to meet a single person who owns a gun. We don’t talk about guns, we don’t want guns, even when our homes are invaded we don’t consider a gun an option. We beef up our home security and maybe, put a bat under the bed. Even most criminals up here don’t carry guns. When shootouts occur, it’s mostly the mafia or gangs killing each other. Goodfellas… We have had the occasional school shooting, unfortunately. The worst occurred in Montreal a few years ago when some nutjob decided to kill 14 female university students because he hated feminists. I’m not sure how you prevent that but the answer certainly isn’t arming everyone to the teeth.
CBO on April 21st, 2007 10:10 am

I find the above post very interesting. It is true that there are fewer handguns and handgun deaths in Canada that the US. No question, but the thing the above post completely disregarded is 1) the population disparity between the two countries and the 2) the crime disparity.

Most of the handgun deaths in the US are results of crime. Crime perpertrated by career criminals, gangmembers or addicts. The guns didn’t cause the crimes to be committed… they were simply the tools the criminals chose. The US has a huge lower class population where crime is rampant. So many people grow up feeling the only way to get ahead is to deal, rob or kill in order to get what they want or feel is their right to have.

What we have is a social problem and guns have become the tool of those following that lifestyle.

Given that fact, those of us who own guns, do so simply because we believe in a level playing field and the ability to protect outselves when the police fall down on the job.

If I lived in Canada, where crime is much, much lower and the population/police ratio was higher I would probably ditch my guns. But I don’t and I won’t. The thing to remember is that guns didn’t cause the crime we have in the US. Crime rose because of social issues, drugs, disparities between classes, etc. Guns are simply how those people get their point across.
donna on April 21st, 2007 11:16 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/brave_beauty_queen_1

and there it is.
Jacqueline on April 21st, 2007 11:23 am

It is scary when you boil down the arguments some of the posters have made here. (American) Society is unfair and there is much hardship amongst the population. This leads to crime. This means criminals will go out and get guns. This leads to people wanting to defend themselves against said criminals with, well, guns also. So on and so forth.

I am not trying to turn this into an Anti-American response. In fact this happens in other parts of the world also, largely amongst Third World countries. However, in the two countries I have lived: Australia for 25 years and Canada for 10, the evils that create the need for guns on both sides of the criminal equation are not as prominent. Things such as universal health care, free education and a different racial make up (although racism is alive and well here, it plays out much differently) has created a different culture. This culture means that the population here views life so much differently than others in countries where this is pervasive culture of crime and the need to take the law into your own hands.

I too want to protect my child. The likelihood of me needing to protect him against a gun toting criminal is somewhere around the need for me to protect him against being struck by lightning.
Josh on April 21st, 2007 12:02 pm

I believe that every person in America should own a gun, and be taught gun use and safety from a very early age. This is not a crazy or dangerous idea, and it is already in use in places like Isreal where every citizen serves manditory military service, and every single person in the whole country is trained how to use a variety of guns with accuracy and safety. They have rules like that because their section of the world is more fucked up than ours.

That’s not to say that it isn’t a good idea for our country also. Fifty years ago this sort of rampant murder was unheard of outside of organized crime. But the USA is becoming a much more violent and dangerous place to live. It is our right, and in my opinion our responsibility to own and know how to operate guns for our own protection, and that of everyone else around us. When every good citizen is armed, criminals have more to worry about than when only the police are armed. There is no longer a first response delay, but rather the victims and witnesses vecome the first responders.

I understand the emotional fear-based response that people who haven’t been exposed to fire arms usually demonstrate. They are dangerous. They are killing machines. They can and do injure and kill lots of people and children every year. But guess what, so do cars. Take the Autobahn for example. In America the government has taken the attitude that slower equates to safer, and lowered the speed limit on roads and highways across our nation. But the speed limits on the Autobahn are much higher when they even exist, and the accident rate there is much lower. The reason is that the German government enforces very strict and difficult safety training courses in order to recieve a drivers liscence. They teach people how to safely use large machines at deadly speeds, and as a result have much safer and faster raods than we do.

The automatic fear of anything dangerous is normal, but the public needs to look past the immediate danger and see the long term rewards. An educated and well armed public, familiar with gun safety and the dangers of fire arms, is much more effective at enforcing the law and keeping peace than a defenseless population protected by a mediocre police force spread thin across our cities.
christen on April 21st, 2007 12:28 pm

Holy comments, Batman!

I see that some posters are bringing up the idea that those with mental illness shouldn’t be allowed to have guns, and I am ALL for that. However–with the state of health care and just government in general in some states (Michigan, for one), that will never, ever happen. There aren’t enough people to staff the unemployment offices there (I know, I’ve had to go on unemployment–twice), and so many people are out of work, they have no insurance–how would that POSSIBLY happen??? I can see it happening here in Orange County. Maybe. But quite frankly, those that are mentally unstable, are depressed, etc, are more frequently those in the lower economic bracket–those getting laid off, those losing their jobs after 15 years, those that aren’t in the best situations to begin with.

My grandfather blew his head off with a hunting rifle (yes, he did) in the woods where he hunted. Suicide by non-assault-weapon. He was an alcoholic who was depressed with no job, no insurance–but he had a gun. Several, in fact.

My brother’s best friend’s dad was a COP. An officer of the law. He was required to have a gun. He became depressed after working in the jail for 15 years–never got ahead, just stuck in a miserable environment. He sought help; his doctor prescribed him antidepressants. The antidepressants gave him suicidal thoughts and he blew his face off last winter. He had three children and a wife. I have never seen a family go through more pain and anguish.

However, I personally don’t know anyone that’s used a gun to “protect their families.”

I’m just saying.
christen on April 21st, 2007 12:30 pm

By the way, I think it’s a sad, sad statement about our American society that mzmtg feels the need to “pack heat” while watching tv on the couch.
Lesley on April 21st, 2007 2:59 pm

To respond to CBO who wrote It is true that there are fewer handguns and handgun deaths in Canada that the US. No question, but the thing the above post completely disregarded is 1) the population disparity between the two countries and the 2) the crime disparity.

Gun deaths are far fewer per capita in Canada than in the US, is the point.

For example, keeping in mind that Windsor’s population is around 200,000 and Detroit’s is 1.5 million (not counting the suburbs)….

In 1999, Detroit had 337 homicides committed with firearms vs. 1 in Windsor. According to the Windsor police dept, Windsor had 4 homicides in 1999, 7 in 2000, 3 in 2001, 5 in 2002, 7 in 2003, 4 in 2005, 5 in 2005, and 3 in 2006. Beyond 1999, there’s no indication how many of these were caused by guns.

Even if Windsor’s population equalled Detroit’s, the number of gun deaths per capita would still be disproportionately greater in Detroit.

Seattle and Vancouver – a stone’s throw from each other – have similar size populations, and gun deaths in Seattle are much greater than in Vancouver.

In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.

Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada’s, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada.

But even as Canada’s rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says.
michael on April 21st, 2007 4:02 pm

The only difference between knives, guns, explosives, deadly viruses and nuclear weapons is just the scale of damage that a single malevolent individual can inflict. As several commenters already said, people who want to kill people will find a way. But should we still try to limit how much harm a single person can inflict?

The problem we have in America is not only how readily accessible efficient weapons are, but also how much our culture inculcates violence.

You may not even realize how much violence our kids (and we ourselves) are exposed to. Sometime you should watch some cartoons or read some children’s books while looking for violence (or other things that go against what you try to teach your child); you’ll be surprised at how much you find.

My 3 year-old-son, having had no exposure to guns whatsoever, watched The Incredibles (a great movie IMO, and rated G in many parts of the world) and then hours later built a gun out of Legos and pointed it around making “boom, boom” noises. (He first built a wand and pointed it around saying “Freeze!”, which we thought was funny and clever.)

Like all three-year-olds, he verbalizes his inner dialogue and so we got to listen to him trying to wrap his mind around the conflicting ideas presented: “Fighting isn’t nice.” “Mr. Incredible is nice.” “The robot’s not nice.” “Why did Mr. Incredible fight the robot?”

It seems like Americans make such a big deal about nudity and evolution and abortion and so many other hot topics, but then turn a blind eye to anger and violence.

Suggesting that we should put more weapons into more people’s hands, so that they can defend themselves against everyone else with weapons… sure, let’s give every person in the world one nuclear weapon each, and see how well that turns out.
Steve on April 21st, 2007 4:43 pm

You are right Christen… it is a sad statement about our American society.

As my dad said, “wish in one hand and shit in the other one then see which one fills up the fastest”. Fact is, we have to deal with cards we were given. We have to be (and are) responsible for ourselves and we can choose to do that any way we wish. And then we have to deal with the consequences of that choice. That, I think, is a positive statement about our society. And what is the tool we use to protect our society? Guns. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.

I could go on all night, but I will not waste anyone’s time. Every time I read an entry I thought I had the answer to, the next post seemed to be mzmtg or CBO. They said it better than I could. Just about everone here said it better than I could. It is what it is.
CBO on April 21st, 2007 5:45 pm

Lesley is right when she says that if Windsor’s population was the same as Detroits that there would still be more crime in Detroit. She’s absolutely right. However, she still ignores the basic fact brought up about social disparity. Why is there and would there be more crime in Detroit? Simple, social pressures make it that way. Plus, I find it interesting that so many of the same people who say “My country XXXXXX, doesn’t have gun ownership and we have less violent crime” never say they have NO violent crime. They do not say that criminals DO NOT HAVE GUNS. Why? Because even if you take away guns from good people, bad people will still have them.

Detroit (and of course the rest of the USA) isn’t in a near-socialist country like Canada, which for all it’s wonderful aspects, is very much like one in it’s approach to health-care, unemployement, etc. Nothing wrong with that, it works in some countries, and not in others. If it works, terrific. I lived in Sweden during college and it was a paradise. An expensive paradise. 60% of what the average person makes went to fund the rest of the people who did nothing. Now, 15 years later, the paradise is over. Violent crime is on an astronomical rise due according to unemployment.

Why doesn’t a socialist system work in America? No matter how admirable of intent such plans would have? Why? Because of the basic psyche of the American culture. This country was founded on an attitude much like Heinlein wrote about in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. TANSTAAFL! There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! You want to be wealthy? Work for it. You want a good job? Go to school and earn it. You want society to respect you and give you props? Then go out and win the respect of the people. You want that new Escalade? Go earn it and work for it, lazy. You want money to throw around and enjoy? Earn it and work for it.

Unfortunately, because of mistakes in our bureaucracy, in recent generations there has been countless born into a sense of entitlement. They do not understand the difference between the government helping you thru tough times and spoon feeding you. They do not believe in TANSTAAFL. Their attitude is one of “You have more than I do, I want what you have and I will take it by force.”

Do I hate that attitude? Yes. Do I hate what it turns people into? Yes. Do I wish we could live in a world where that doesn’t exist? Yes. But I love my country, better or worse, it is my country. It’s not Canada. It is not England. It is not Germany or France or Belgium. It is America. What we are now is a product not just of guns, but of 400 years of growth as a continent and 200 years as a country. Is it perfect? Hell no, but it is my country. I take it as it is.

The way it is today means that if I wish to take responsibility on a personal level for myself and my family, I must also be able and ready to defend them to the highest level. I don’t live in a country where the largest fear for my child is lightning strike. I live in a country where sadly, bad guys roam, armed and able to do to damage. Do I expect them to ever cross my door? No. But if they do, I wish to be ready.

Those who live in ivory towers of ideals crying to “disarm disarm, depend on government to save you” would also be the first ones to criticize the government if uncontrollable circumstances prevented them from protecting their towers. I choose to not trust in one person or group. As an idealist, I trust my government and believe it wants to protect me and will try to do so. As a realist, however, I know they cannot save everyone. I simply choose to fill the gap between what I wish and what is reality myself.

Those that say “I would never own a gun.” Truly, I applaud you for standing by your ideals. Bravo. However, I challenge you … if you truly believe in your pacifist, disarmed ideals for whatever good reason you hold them, place a sign on your lawn saying “UNARMED HOME.” If you truly believe in what you say, you should have no fear. However, if you choose not to out of fear, please know this … one of things that could keep the bad guys out of your home is uncertainty they have whether or not you ARE armed. I don’t advertise “ARMED” or “UNARMED” either at my home. They don’t know if they are breaking into your home or mine. You live a life of safety and security not just via the largess of the police but also on my, your fellow citizen, largess. I am armed. The fear and uncertainty that creates in the bad guys also protects you. You may not like it, but it is truth.

The same person who says “I will not own a gun” is still human. If he walked into his home and found a man raping his daughter, he would still fight to protect her. Only a moron would say “Please finish gently and leave, we only wish harmony.” No, of course not! He would grab a bat or a chair or a lamp and start swinging. If he lived in a country where criminals could not and do not own guns that it would be enough. But in every country of the world. Regardless of where you are, bad guys will have weapons. Period. That same man might be able to defend his daughter against a regular man. What if the man is 6′5″ and 290. What if it’s 3 people. That 6′5″ isn’t going to be afraid of a pasty guy in sandals swinging a Tiffany lamp. But if that same man had a gun, it would be vastly different. Why? Because it levels the playing field. There is a reason they call guns “Equalizers.” Predators inherently prey on the weak. When I lived in Africa we would go to the game parks often. It was drilled into us that lions only went for the weak, the young or the infirm. It is instinctual for predators to on easy prey. It has to do with energy expenditure versus energy gained. It’s the same with human predators. You never here of a guy robbing a gun store or a police station. Why? Well, duh, too many other people the same size. Too much risk. But oh, how easy it is to kick in the door of a person who isn’t armed and prey on them. Do I wish we lived in a world without predators? Yes, and if wished were buttercakes, beggars might bite. Until someone makes lions vegetarians, I’ll be ready to defend my family.
CBO on April 21st, 2007 6:14 pm

One last thought to all who post from other countries. It is interesting to me how m any people point to their country vs the USA and often remind us of “how awful” the USA is because of guns. Oddly, no one mentions countries like Israel, which nearly every person up reaching maturity has to serve a term in the military and are not only taught properly how to use weapons. A majority of households and businesses especially on the extreme border areas are armed. Yet oddly you never hear of a shooting like we just had. Any killing on a large scale are via bombings and against unarmed civilians at a market. Why? Because if anyone was idiotic enough to pull a gun, he’d be cut to ribbons. Far easier to push a button than risk pulling a gun in that country.

Or what about Switzerland. I lived there for a time after school and pretty much every home I entered was armed. Military training and service is mandatory, or was at that time at least. The people I lived with had a standard military issue Sig-Sauer automatic rifle in their home in the kitchen cupboard. It was kept unloaded but the whole family knew how to use it if need be. Yet, oddly, you don’t hear of crimes such as we have in the States.

Maybe, just maybe, an armed, TRAINED, PREPARED and WELL ADJUSTED society is a polite society.

Amazing how no one brings up countries like those as examples.

Hmmmmm…. just something to think about.
Steve on April 21st, 2007 8:02 pm

CBO… you did it again! Well said.
Steve on April 21st, 2007 8:22 pm

This is, of course, not reality nor something I think should or could be done. It’s just a hypothetical that one will either believe or not. But… if, on 9/11, everyone boarding an aircraft, yes everyone, were issued a handgun for the flight, would we still have the tower’s. Probably. It, at least, would have happened another way, like a bomb. But as I recall, that was tried and didn’t work very well.

I’m done. Thanks.
Lesley on April 21st, 2007 10:07 pm

Detroit (and of course the rest of the USA) isn’t in a near-socialist country like Canada... With all due respect, CBO, Canada is far from “socialist”. We are a capitalist country that has a more Scandinavian approach to social policy. That is, we believe in universal health care (though that appears to be going down the tubes) and we believe that taking care of people during times of misfortune (unemployment, etc) is a good investment for the whole society. That said, we do have neoconservative governments that tend to favour a survivor of the fittest mentality.

I do agree with you there is a social difference between the US and Canada. Canada is more connected to the world, less insular, and a tad more humble :). Our gov’t is modeled after the British system and we are probably more connected to Europe even though our largest trading partner is the US and we share a lot of teevee and movies and the like. I have to say that the US frequently ignores the fact – or the population fails to realize – that Canada is the second largest supplier in the world of oil to the US, and that the US heavily depends on Canadian resources and trade.
CBO on April 22nd, 2007 10:00 am

Lesley,
I know that Canada is far from being a true “socialist” country. However, having said that, the truth is that Canada is as close to the socialist ideal as any other “socialist” country today. Perhaps it doesn’t follow the hardcore cradle-to-grave economy that others do, but in idealism it is and it attempts it the best it can in it’s practices.

As for the social differences, true … the USA is not as connected to the world, is not as open or as humble.

Well, as connected as a country that supplies 90% of the foreign aid in the world to third world countries, not as insular as a country that has the largest diplomatic service in the world and as humble as one of the top three economies in the world could be. We’re not perfect but many people view the few failings of the countries policies only instead of looking at the rest of the good we do. Even during the height of the cold-war, America was the one that fed 70% of Europe and the East Bloc nations it’s grain. During the 90’s foreign aide tripled. During the 2000’s it’s grown 35% more every year. When the tsunami hit Indonesia, the USA made up the bulk of the aide.

As for oil, while many are not aware of the fact you shared, I am. My wife is a geologist here in Oklahoma whose company has joint ventures in Canada as well as it’s own fields in the Gulf of Mexico and I am an ex-employee of the State Dept. All that aside, my views of Canada had nothing to do with a “we’re better/you’re worse” spiel than to say that we are two different countries with two essentially two different mindsets. As you said, your own country is modeled after the British system which is something interesting in and of itself considering Britain still held colonies well into the 50’s.

Despite the good and bad of both countries, even though we share a common language and common entertainment (for the most part) we are still two different sets of people. What you have in Canada would not work in the USA. Not now. Maybe in 200 years when the social strata has changed but not now.

For what we have now, guns are still needed for protection. I wish they weren’t but they are. When I use to go with my uncles to Lake Pakaskian in Canada to hunt and fish as a child on vacation, they always took rifles with them not only to hunt with but as protection against any mammals bigger than them in the woods. We did all we could to avoid trouble. Hung our larder from a tree, buried our scat and trash, etc but we still needed the rifles … just in case. Unfortunately, today in the USA certain things, mainly drugs among others, have caused a major upsurge in crime. In the same way I would carry rifle against bears in the woods, I choose to carry a gun to protect myself and family .. just in case. If I would carry a rifle as I did in the woods, something with only 3 rounds and 3 feet long I would. I can’t. I can carry a handgun easily, store it easily and use it easily. That is why I believe handguns should be allowed.

I applaud the fact that Canada doesn’t have the major crime we do and that you have no reason to need guns as we do.

Wait.

When the predators who sell the drugs in the USA need a new country to go to, rest assured they’ll go north. When the gangs birthed in the civil wars of Central America that have immigrated into the USA along with the other good immigrants find that the USA is too hot to handle, rest assured they will head north. Already, Vancouver is awash in Triads. Pakistani and Afghani opium lords are already pushing their way into Toronto. None of this has anything to do with the USA. We simply became the first targets for this new generation of crime, just as Russia was and then France and most of Europe. It has to do with poverty and lack of a proper social agenda for the most part. Remember the riots last year in Marseille and Paris? 99% of those involved were poor moslem immigrants who were angry because the insular and generally racist attitude of the french had marginalized them into ghettos and poverty.

Perhaps Canada doesn’t have those problems now as we and others do. But as your countries welfare system is overloaded as our is and the class gap widened you will face the same thing. It’s just a matter of time.

One other problem is that America (in my opinion) has made a major mistake and instead of welcoming all immigrants and doing what we can to integrate them into society with respect and brotherhood, we’ve become afraid of our jobs and supposed loss of culture. As we’ve marginalized so many, we are reaping the sad result. Canada will face the same thing. Hopefully, you’ll do a better job than we did.
Mandy on April 23rd, 2007 7:53 am

I have to say, the stereotype of persons with mental illness being inherently more violent than the average person needs to be put to rest. Research has shown (I’m quoting from one study published in 1998 in the Archives of General Psychiatry) that “…patients discharged from psychiatric facilities who did not abuse alcohol and illegal drugs had a rate of violence no different than that of their neighbors in the community.” So, unless drugs or alcohol are involved, people with mental disorders do not pose any more threat to the community than anyone else. And in most states, due to the lack of inpatient mental health beds, most patients are committed for treatment as opposed to being voluntary patients, so that is not a distinction that makes much difference. I’m strongly in favor of gun control for everyone; to single out persons with a history of mental illness in a discussion of gun control is unfair, and speaks to our country’s general fear and stigmatization of something we don’t understand very well.
Sabine on April 23rd, 2007 8:14 am

I just started going to the gun range and practicing, and intend to get exactly what you have, a 38 special. In my case, I work as Geologist and frequently have to go to oil fields in the middle of nowhere (very close to Mexico, where people tend to be wandering around a lot), and usually late at night. Also, living alone I would prefer to have a gun. I’m not sure how I would feel about it if I had child though, that’s a different can of worms. I grew up in a house with an unlocked gun room, as most people in my area were… We never had incidences, mostly because we learned very young the damage that guns can do and we were taught to respect them. My parents both have concealment licenses. My brother is a police officer. So like JB, guns have always been a part of my world.

I tend to agree with the ranks that have said that if one or two other people had been armed at Virginia Tech, things would have gone down very differently. Like many, I feel that if guns were “taken away” from the masses, they would still end up in the hands of criminals, and the rest of us would be at their mercy. That’s just how I feel about it. Even if there were no guns, then the violent would turn to knives. There will always be violent humans, and they’ll resort to throwing rocks if they have to.

This is probabably one of the most interesting and intelligent comments section discussions I have ever read, by the way. Hats off the you for the post, and to your readers for the great input.
Sabine’s Garden » Elsewhere on April 23rd, 2007 8:17 am

[...] There is a very good discussion going on over at Sundry’s about guns. I always love Sundry’s posts, but her comments section is usually almost as thought provoking and interesting to read. Posted by sabine | [...]
breckgirl on April 23rd, 2007 3:30 pm

It seems that I am not harboring a secret crush on Josh only, anymore – I think I am now in love CBO as well. Well said, all of it.
jac on April 24th, 2007 3:28 am

God, this is scary. Really. As another one living on the other side of the world, people here have (of course) looked at the V/Tech tragedy and said, “How can we prevent this from happening here?” I can guarantee they did not conclude, “By god! If all our university students were armed, they could shoot these psychos before they can really get going! Let’s repeal our strict gun control laws, introduce stringent licenced permits for concealed weapons and let lovely stable people carry guns to stop nutbags!”

Because no matter what your, um, more vocal commenters have said, Sundry, the American system is pretty shit. However, don’t jump on me, scary people! I don’t want you to give up your guns. Do I think you should all bear arms? Absolutely, you’re too far gone for gun control. Just don’t take the rest of the world down with you. (Yes, I have read too many blog posts on this today…)
pooferrecy on August 3rd, 2008 8:08 am

Thank you

Leave a Reply

Stuff I Like:

Daily piffle:

Older Entries

Find me elsewhere

RSS feed

Apr

19

Under fire

Comments

Stuff I Like: