This Story is Archived
Op Ed: A Rifle in Every Pot »
Posted by: deathray 1 year, 9 months agoIT'S a phenomenon that gives the term "gun control" a whole new meaning: community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 355
-
samsara15
Jan. 16, 2007, 6:42 a.m.I own no guns. If I had one, and kept it loaded, it would be a danger to us in our house, in that it might accicidentally get fired and hurt one of our family. If it were not loaded, it would be useless. In many homes where guns exist, they get fired in anger and kill someone. Guns kill far more relatives than strangers. We live in a violent society. Doesn't it make more sense to try and make this a less violent society?
-
-
bobshotme
Jan. 16, 2007, 2:31 p.m.Guns lower crime rates, and protect.
lots of people die accidentally from household chemicals....lets ban them too! hey i knew a women who's kid drowned in her pool....lets outlaw them too!
bottom line gun lower crime, save lives by lowering crime AND gun control is what facist want..stalin, hitler all were in favor of getting rid of guns in their nations....I wonder why?
-
Helixbuilder
Jan. 16, 2007, 3:02 p.m.People get killed in homes where there are no guns as well. There are no easy answers are there?
-
Dave53
Jan. 16, 2007, 5:47 p.m.Why would a loaded gun be a danger to you. It's your gun , you control it. Or, are you saying you have no self control. What keeps you from picking up a butcher knife or an axe, pitchfork, you get the idea. People are the problem, not guns. But why would you give up the opportunity to defend yourself against a crook that has a gun and doesn't give a hoot about any law, let alone one about his gun.
It make no sense to me that I have to get shot before some policeman will attempt to catch the guy that shot me. Absurd. It seems to me that more bad people need to be put under the jail than in it and just maybe the rest of us could put our guns in the closet and forget them.
-
ETproductions
Jan. 17, 2007, 1:16 a.m.As samsara15 points out, it's a complex question.
I once defended our home. I was living in a neighborhood that was transitioning from one race to the next, and a bunch from the other side gathered in the street and began yelling and throwing rocks at the street lamps to break them out.
I called the police, then went and loaded an M1 3030 carbine my dad had brought back from WWII. I sat on the sofa with the weapon off safety and across my lap.
Well before the police could arrive, the door to the duplex swung open, and a street thug came into my unit. I just leveled the M1 at him and said, "How would you like to leave?"
He said, "Oops, wrong apartment.", and quickly closed my door behind himself. The street instantly grew quiet and the entier incident was over before the police arrived.
-
-
FrankieT
Jan. 16, 2007, 7:31 a.m.Gun control is a complex issue and one that needs much intelligent discussion.
-
Wizardcotx
Jan. 16, 2007, 12:18 p.m.Gun control is a very simple issue.. either you have the freedom to defend yourself and your property or you don't
In the country where I live the average response time for a police call is 45 minutes.
In the closest city it is 18 minutes. and the cops show up only after the rape, or murder has occured
If you want to be able to protect your own family get a gun, learn to shoot it, and keep it loaded where you can get to it easily. Else admit you are a victim waiting to happen.
Oh the accidental shooting thing is pure BS. if parents teach their children that doesn't happen.
The wizard of reality
-
-
Searunner52
Jan. 16, 2007, 8:18 a.m.In many respects I am as liberal as they come yet I have and maintain a number of weapons in my home - and yes they are all loaded. To me an empty weapon is no better than an expensive club! The majority are secured either in my gun safe or with trigger or bolt locks, but there are several that are not. My children were reared to understand that these weapons were not toys and that every weapon was considered loaded until you personally verified it was not!
I am in favor of every household being armed as I see an armed civilian population as being the final defense against tyranny - whether it be from forces outside the Nation, or, as if far more likely the case, from within!
-
elzorro2162
Jan. 16, 2007, 10 a.m.SOme years ago I would have been opposed to your viewpoint since I thought that tyranny was a thing of the past during colonial times when such a threat was possible. It was necessary to have weapons was essential to maintaining freedom. The constitution then safeguarded us from tyranny and the office of the President was kept with limited powers. But my friend, since our present reality is different and the erosion of our rights and the president taking too much power is a threat to our liberties, I MUST AGREE with YOU. Times are different and we hope our nation will change course towards liberty once again. However, we must exert more control over those (and only those) whose potential to use them irresponsibly could end up in tragedies such as last years Amish School shootings. Maybe a have everyone who wants to own be required to take a Psychological evaluation as a requisite? whaddya say?
Z
-
geographer47
Jan. 16, 2007, 10:15 a.m.Nothing is more dangerous than an uneducated gun owner. The basic principles that you have taught your children evade some people who believe that the mere ownership of a gun suddenly makes them safe from whatever danger prompted them to rush out and buy one. Until smart firearms are perfected, some of them will continue to be shot with their own weapons when they demonstrate that they either don't know how to use them or don't realize that if they have one they may need to use it.
-
Hamlet
Jan. 16, 2007, 2:53 p.m.A couple of points to remember.
1. Countries where private citizens are not permitted to own non-hunting guns (and then only with stringent safety requirements) have much lower overall crime rates. Especially murder.
2. In the good ol' days of 1776, theft of anything valued at over 2 pennies was a capital crime. You stole an iron spoon you were hung. That's it.
3. Also in 1776 there was a huge deterioration of law and order as the war approached. Most folk already owned hunting guns anyway - for hunting. The ordinances to arm the populace were firstly to allow people to protect themselves against the *revolutionary* Committees, which were not always more than vigilantes out to settle old scores. When the state militias were formed, it was not without a fight as the vigilantes were - as vigilantes will - doing quite well from their warlordism and liked the spoils. The second amendment did not pass without heated debate as to just what defending yourself was meant to include.
-
ramblingwreck
Jan. 16, 2007, 6:46 p.m.Searunner52: My children were reared to understand that these weapons were not toys and that every weapon was considered loaded until you personally verified it was not!
Ramblingwreck: We take it a step further, we emphasize that more people are killed by "empty" weapons than loaded. For this reason, we were taught from the get-go NEVER to point a weapon at something/one we didn't intend to shoot.
-
Harbor
Jan. 16, 2007, 8:06 p.m.What people need is gun education. I used to be afraid of handguns (not rifles) and so my husband showed me how to take mine apart, clean it, took me out to a range. Now I no longer fear them as I know how to properly handle them. My kids get to shoot them as well and aren't awestruck by them and leave them alone.
-
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 16, 2007, 8:24 a.m.With all the undisciplined people, drinking, dysfunctional families, and the innocent mistakes that can occur in even the most orderly of family units, having a loaded gun in every house seems only more threatening.
I would suggest that the number of unnecessary deaths and injuries will overtake its deterrent effects, which are, in my estimation, overly emphasized in this article.
Perhaps a reliable screening process could implement such an idea without putting guns in the hands of people that you wouldn't even trust to drive your car around the block.
Observig some of the nut jobs that so easily fly off the handle at Netscape, I am particulary grateful that we don't have to be dodging bullets from these commenters, as well.
-
geographer47
Jan. 16, 2007, 10:19 a.m.The best screening is self screening. Other than the waiting period to purchase a firearm and denying guns to felons, I don't want the government setting up subjective tests abridging the right to keep and bear arms.
-
2Labs
Jan. 16, 2007, 2:20 p.m.Spadecaller:
You are doing alot of seeming, suggesting and estimating. You appear to be ill-informed on these matters. I've read other posts of yours and you are seriosly left leaning. Fine but even the left can't debunk the truths. People like myself who are affected by this issue know that the unnecessary deaths and injuries don't overtake the detterent effect. There are other communuties where these practices have been going on for quiet some time and the statistics are very favorable.
-
-
mcgrievysr
Jan. 16, 2007, 8:21 a.m.The most violent crime in the past two years in Greenleaf, Idaho was a fist fight. Too bad that this was before mandatory gun ownership. Those dudes could have settled the fight with an old-fashioned duel.:-) But, on a serious note,the point that you raised, deathray, is an interesting one. And your comment, Frankie, is very true. Do we trust an armed citizenship to exercise rational restraint and judgment in times of peril? It is true that often innocent family members get shot accidentally when loaded guns are in a home. And yes, those who possess guns now, legally or not, are often undesirables. As for me, I'll take my chances without a loaded weapon.
-
Searunner52
Jan. 16, 2007, 9:27 a.m."Do we trust an armed citizenship to exercise rational restraint and judgment in times of peril?"
Conversely the far more important question that should be raised is "Do we trust our government to exercize rational restraint during time of peril?"
My response is a resounding No! I do not trust the government to "do the right thing" for they have shown themselves, time and again, not to be worthy of that trust IMO!
Considering the number of "guns" in private hands the number "accidently shot" is very small in comparison. One could make the same arguement about the number of people that are "accidently" hit by motor vehicles or the number of people who are "
-
