Gun Control
I’ve never been pro gun. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it or researching it. It’s just one of those issues where I’ve never been conflicted. I think it’s stupid to allow people to have guns. As you can imagine, this episode has done nothing to change my views. So, when I decided that Gun Control should be another topic addressed in this blog, I felt I should do some research…
I’ve spent a couple of hours looking at blogs and online articles etc. from the NRA and other pro-gun constituencies. I admit my research hasn’t been exhaustive, but I think I’ve seen enough. There’s no logical argument for carrying a hand gun.
The first question the police asked me, when I gave my statement, was if I was carrying a weapon that night. My answer was, “No. I never carry a weapon.” I found out later that they also asked my girlfriend if I had been carrying, and they searched my house to see if I had any weapons. If I had a weapon on me (a gun, or a knife… presumably even a baseball bat) that night, they could not have charged my attacker with Attempted Murder. If I had been carrying a gun, I would have used it. The kid missed me with his first shot. I could have shot and killed him. If that happened, I’d be the one cooling my heels in the county lock-up awaiting trial.
None of the other first world countries allow ownership of handguns. You never read about a high ranking politician in any of those countries accidentally shooting their friend in the face. It just doesn’t happen.
I believe that if we had gun laws in this country comparable to those in western Europe (or China, India, Japan, etc.), I would not have been shot three weeks ago. That sixteen year old kid would not have been able to get his hands on a gun.
The NRA likes to say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” I disagree.
Guns enable people to quickly and easily kill people. Without the gun that kid would have had to get much closer to me to inflict bodily harm. It would have required more courage and more participation of his mind, body and soul. If you remove the gun from the equation, you can still have a murderous individual; but that person is going to need more time and energy to commit that murder. Shooting someone with a gun is like murdering by remote control. It’s like playing a video game.
It’s difficult to accidentally kill someone with your bare hands. Not so with a hand gun.
Hi Bob - It’s tough to argue with someone who went through what you did, but I disagree with you on the following points:
* The “right” to own a gun should not be taken away. Why? Because then two sets of people will still have them: criminals and the government - tough to distinguish those two sometimes.
* I agree with you on principle, that in an ideal world guns should not be present. But, related to my first point, is my belief that your argument, which I believe maintains that it is ok for cops, soldiers, etc. to “own” guns, means that subsets of the same flawed, compromised, and sometimes corrupt human beings will be able to quickly kill someone — they’ll just have a badge or uniform to justify it.
* While there is less chance of you being shot when guns are “outlawed” because less people will carry them, you could still be shot by a criminal that can and will get a gun on the black market. Gun companies will not stop making them, and street smart capitalists will find a way. Examples? Look how many “illegal” automatic weapons find their way into the ghettos, and drug trade.
* Civilizations and societies can fall, and go through times of great turmoil. During those times, it will be better for a number of good citizens to have easy access to guns for self defense.
* I don’t think it is the government’s right (another flawed group of human beings… like the rest of us) to mandate how we may, or may not defend ourselves in a violent world.
* If I had a meth-crazed mad-person break into my house, with increased strength and abandon because of the drug — I would want the option to shoot to kill to protect my life and loved ones.
Bottom line: in a world of good and evil, checks and balances are necessary, and the right to own a gun is one of them. But the price of that freedom, is the potential for misuse of it — which your story, writing and blog so well protrays.
- Scott
Scott Frangos
21 Mar 09 at 9:31 pm
Again, thanks for another thoughtful posting. I’ve lived as you have. Meaning, I never once considered having a gun in my home. Too many things could go wrong and one mistake ends up as a headline - “Kid Shoots Friend With Father’s Gun” - ahh .. no thanks.
There’s no perfect answer here, but I just can’t seem to get my head around Scott’s argument above.
Thanks again for the thought provoking post. Going to twitter this one right now.
Dan
21 Mar 09 at 9:48 pm
Bob, you’re doing a great job in unfolding this tale. I hope it’s as therapeutic for you to set down and share these details as it is riveting for us to read. Please tell the entire tale, step by step, for however long it takes to close the circle and show the real-life impact of real-life gun violence.
While gun ownership has indeed been a tradition of American life going back long before the Revolutionary War, current policies don’t reflect the profound changes in society, in firearms technology and in the number of gun murders that occur in the U.S. each year. In 2005, 10,100 murders were committed with firearms in the U.S., according to the FBI. That is an incredible cost to our society and an unacceptable price of the freedom to bear arms treasured by gun advocates.
Our gun laws must change to reflect the realities of the modern world. Or maybe we should follow Chris Rock’s advice: Let everyone keep all the damn guns they want, and just ban the manufacture of ammunition. That wouldn’t violate anyone’s rights under the Second Amendment.
Bob, I’m definitely looking forward to future posts.
Av Goldstein
21 Mar 09 at 11:32 pm
We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. There are millions of guns in nightstands and glove compartments all over America. I can’t change that. Still, for myself, I choose to live a gun-free life.
Thanks Av, Dan and Scott for reasoned and sincere comments.
admin
22 Mar 09 at 1:35 pm
another great post Bob. Keep ‘em coming.
Kim Northrop
22 Mar 09 at 2:52 pm
Hi -
I appreciate the debate on a volatile subject and respect different points of view.
Dan and Av - you make good points, but they only serve to raise questions which lead me to the same conclusion:
Dan: “Too many things could go wrong..” Ok. But what about when a gun saves your life in a right circumstance? Don’t we need to weigh that against what could go wrong? Things could go wrong with driving an automobile, too, or with a pocket knife, etc.
AV: You seem to be saying our society is more violent. Two questions:
- In an increasingly violent society isn’t it important to be prepared when criminals have, and will get guns, no matter the laws?
- What do you think about the fact that many other societies around the globe, that have outlawed guns, have murder rates more than 2-3 times that in the US? World murder percentages (per 100k) show Russia — where guns are illegal to own — at 16.5, while the US is at 5.6 — see Wikipedia article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
People are violent, with or without the right to bear arms. Making guns illegal is not shown historically or presently to reduce murder rates. But it has been shown as a way for right meaning people to defend their liberty, dreams and pursuit of happiness.
Why would anyone want to take away the rights which freed us from crown tyranny? I just can’t wrap my mind around that.
webfadds
22 Mar 09 at 2:58 pm
First let me say that I am not advocating the elimination of all guns. I say this not because I think guns are needed, but because I believe guns are such a part of our culture that a prohibition on guns would be no more successful than the prohibition on alcohol was in the last century.
I do believe that guns should be heavily regulated. Especially handguns.
Scott - I want to comment on some of your points. I agree that it would be useful to look at the cost/benefit of allowing handguns (how often they hurt vs. how often a life is saved). I went online looking for information and found many people making the same point that guns save more lives than they take. I would submit that it is probably impossible to know if this is true. There is no sound way to measure it. A statistic I found in support of the claim turns out to have been produced by extrapolating from data that was gathered using very broad definitions. For example, people were asked if they or someone they knew had stopped a crime with a gun in the last year. It was left to the subject to interpret first if there was the threat of a crime and second that it was the fact of a gun that stopped the crime from happening. It counted someone hearing a noise outside and yelling “go away, I have a gun” as a crime stopped.
It is true that something could go wrong with a car, but there’s an important distinction between a car and a gun. The transportation provided by cars is a great benefit that our society decided is worth the cost (pollution, congestion, lost lives in accidents). A car can kill someone but that is not its purpose.
The purpose of a gun is to kill or cause great injury. That’s it. The reason to own one is to have the power of a gun at your disposal. The reason to own a car is transportation. The reason to own a gun is to kill.
Yes, I understand that maybe that sentence would be more complete if it ended with.”…kill someone who wished to hurt you or your loved ones.” Fair enough. I can see that some people are qualified enough to own a handgun responsibly but it is my impression that far too many more are thrilled by the power of a gun without having the training or judgment to own one. If someone wishes to own a handgun for personal defense I believe they should be required to go through training and meet qualifications for gun ownership that must be renewed every year.
Bob was shot not just because the young man was able to steal a gun from a relative who did not properly secure it, but because that young man wanted to have the power of that gun to hurt someone. We still don’t know why he knocked on Bob’s door. The police say it was totally random. But having that power he used it on an unarmed man. Did he understand the consequences of his actions?
It’s my opinion that the prevalence of guns in our society makes people less aware of the deadly seriousness of a gun. Most people in the U.S. will never find themselves in a situation where a gun will save their lives, but keep one because they want to be able to defend themselves. I must say I remain unconvinced of the need.
Kate Brady
22 Mar 09 at 8:09 pm
Bob- I appreciate the time you are taking to do this blog. I agree with one of the other contributors that this is very therapeutic for you but also helps all of us focus on the issues, too. I have always been a strong supporter of gun control, even though my father kept hunting rifles all the time I was growing up. My brother is a licensed fire arms instructor, supports a person’s right to own a gun but,also feels proper instruction should be a requirement for ownership. Keep the blog coming!
Ruth Agnew
23 Mar 09 at 2:36 pm
Hi, I found this through TampaBLAB. Just really wanted to throw in my 2 cents. Hope you don’t mind.
I am pro-gun for the simple fact that I believe in the power of the common citizen. And this has nothing to do with self-protection.
Admittedly, I am little extreme in that I do not believe the government should not be more powerful than its citizenry. This includes in weaponry as well. How else could the people overthrow the government if necessary?
Unfortunately, we do not have a “Break in Case of Revolution” box where we can hold enough weaponry to match the might of our government. So until we have that, the people have to hold that power in their closets. That’s what a government run by the people means.
Guns are the ultimate insurance against a tyrannical government. See Sweden and Kurdistan as a great examples of armed citizenry.
Jordi
24 Mar 09 at 11:42 pm
Hi - Thanks to Bob for providing a thought provoking blog. If there’s a common thread on this post comment list, it seems we agree on the need for regulations and respect for weapons. What will be interesting to learn is how the young man acquired the weapon he used in this case. Problem is, there are regulations now, and yet a young man was carrying and using a gun illegally.
Scott Frangos
25 Mar 09 at 2:30 am
Bob & Friends- Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this extrememly throught provoking and impossible to agree on topic… There are certainly two sides to this argument in a world that is far from perfect with no end to the violence in sight. I too choose not to have a gun in my home with small children present (I’ve never even held a real gun). Maybe some day, but I am not willing to take that risk for something that “might”, but likely won’t, happen. I can only hope that if an intruder ever entered my home that if my 100lb golden didn’t scare him off that I’d have the opportunity for instinct and martial art training to kick in! Bob, I hope none of us ever have to go through the nightmare that you have experienced. It is scary to know that it could happen; however, living in fear is no way to live. Keep the blogs coming! I hope you are able to find some peace of mind through it. You are an inspiration.
Lauren
25 Mar 09 at 2:05 pm