Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on December 14, 2008 By Draginol In Politics

I'm not personally into guns but I am a strong believer in the right for citizens to legally purchase pretty much any type of precision target weapon (i.e. guns).

One of the strawman arguments I hear often is "Why not let people have nukes then?" and the reason is that the constitution intended citizens to bear arms -- specifically weapons that have a relatively high degree of precision.  Explosives, canons, etc. are not precision weapons.

Now before someone gets hung up on the above paragraph and starts naming various non-gun weapons that are arguably precise let me get to the meat of this discussion:

Guns are the great equalizer.  Societies in which citizens have few guns also tend to have more crime when comparing similar demographics. Gun opponents tend to fixate at overall crime rates or cherry pick types of crime ("gun violence") but when you compare apples and apples (like two middle class families in the US or UK) you find that the society that has guns tends to suffer less from crime.

That's because criminals have to think twice before doing a home invasion.  Home invasion, in Britain, is relatively common. Former Beatle George Harrison was attacked in his home by an intruder and severely injured.  In the US, home invasions are very rare because the would-be intruder never knows when the residents might be armed.

I don't want to have to rely on a benevolent government for all my protection. I expect to have the right to defend myself and my family -- with lethal force if necessary.

Certainly, there are a few nuts out there and some of them (not many but some) do purchase their weapons legally. But that's going to be true with anything. More people die due to cars and alcohol and I don't think we're going to be outlawing those things any time soon either.

Update: 

As if to help prove my point...

Found on this blog today:

An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.

The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.

In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.

The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord repaired the broken window.

She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.

She tried to call 911, but couldn’t because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor’s home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house. He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later.

Swingle said the victim identified Preyer as the attacker in both incidents. Preyer, of Jackson, Mo., had wet caulking from the recently repaired basement window on his clothing when he was shot.

“I will not be filing any sort of charge against this 57-year-old woman, who was clearly justified under the law in shooting this intruder in her home,” Swingle said.

Thank God we haven't given the government the ability to take our guns.


Comments (Page 1)
7 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Dec 14, 2008

I see people like Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein the two senators from California who are fierce gun control people yet they both go about armed, it's like they can protect themselves but we are to stupid to protect ourselves. Talk about Hypocrisy. Both are fairly Liberal in their politics, both want to control the citizens they represent by denying them weapons.

on Dec 14, 2008

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

on Dec 14, 2008

Island Dog
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

There in lies the difference between the English and us, the English have no fear of a citizens uprising if they try to put down its citizens, if our government gets to Crazy they have to fear such a thing as an armed revolt.

on Dec 14, 2008

I would appreciate if you link to statistics about murders/severe injuries during burglary by class/income for the USA and UK.

George Harrison was attacked by a psychopath not a "normal burglar", and no free society can do anything against psychopaths, I mean maybe he would have shot him but it wouldn't have prevented the psychopath from trying.

gun control usually doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to carry guns in most europe countries just that they have to pass some tests (which aren't harder than those you need to pass to get a fishing license) and/or are only allowed to carry them at home/own property. And that shotguns and stuff like that isn't allowed either (shotguns aren't really a precision weapon I think).

Given that 60% of murders in the USA are done with guns and that criminals won't change their habits when homeowners don't have guns anymore, abolishing weapons wouldn't do any good. But "gun control" can also mean to just teach people how to prevent that their children kill themselves or others with those guns. I don't think its bad when people have guns but they should be very responsible with it and know what can go wrong when they aren't careful.

Luckily I live in a country with a murder rate so low that the risk of getting killed by a car while buying the weapon is higher than getting killed from a gun (and about 80-90% of the murders over here are between relatives/friends anyways and no gun is going to prevent that in most cases)

 

 

on Dec 14, 2008

Moderateman

Island Dogcomment 2"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
There in lies the difference between the English and us, the English have no fear of a citizens uprising if they try to put down its citizens, if our government gets to Crazy they have to fear such a thing as an armed revolt.

 

This. I dont care what people say...gun control as it is , is not the answer. The bad guys still get guns, and all this does is penalize the Citz that are law abiding.

 

Im all for what the guy says about teaching people how to use guns the right way... thats cool, what i dont like is when you start banning guns of any type....

on Dec 14, 2008

Luckily there's an ad for an armor vest next to this article.

~Zoo

on Dec 14, 2008

We should be allowed Nukes too.

The average, intellegent, Citizen could figure out how to build a Nuclear weapon... the plans are online, and it's relatively easy.  Lets not forget that Lead, or Gold, is only a few atomic points below Uranium.

But as far as Guns go?  I'm pretty secure having mine.  I trained my family and friends on safety of guns... just repeatedly drill into their heads "Never point this at something you don't want dead." whether it's loaded or not.

Like violence in games: education of the topic is more important then restriction.

on Dec 14, 2008

Lets not forget that Lead, or Gold, is only a few atomic points below Uranium.

Feel free to try "upgrading" those into fissile Uranium and let me know how that goes. I'll stick with my AR-15

on Dec 14, 2008

Holy incomplete argument, Batman.

Your first point is something that both of us can agree on. People comparing weapons of immense power to a 7-round pistol is flawed, to say the very least. However, that's where my agreement with you ends.

Talking about guns without bringing gun crime into the argument is silly. That's like talking about why we should ban alcohol without talking about any crimes that include alcohol – what's the point? I, too, would appreciate links to all relevant statistics and points that you made (my social sciences instructor would fail you at the moment). In 2006-2007, there were 50 gun murders in the UK (PDF source). Crimes that involved a firearm totaled 634 in the same period. 

It's interesting that you draw comparisons to a European country. According to this document (with sources), of the top 10 worst cities for gun murders in the USA or European regions, 8 were in the US. Only one city in the top-20 list is from the UK. 

If we break it down to a per-100,000 rating for regions, which removes the population from the equation, the UK has 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. For comparison, the US has 5.5. Canada has a rate of 1.7. If guns make society safer, why is the USA's murder rate so relatively high? 

I briefly mentioned that list of unsafe cities in the US and in Europe. The only UK city in the top 20 list is Belfast, Northern Ireland. Even though it's the most dangerous city in the UK, it's safer than the US, as a whole. 

While researching a bit for this reply, I came across a list of arguments against my point, in support of your view. It suggested that if you remove gun murders from all the murders committed in the USA, the States would still have a higher murder rate than Japan, Australia or the UK, therefore eliminating the argument that guns are the problem. They then go on to state that it must be a more complex social issue that is the root cause, not lax gun laws. While I see their point, I fail to understand how monumentally stupid it is. I don't see how it's somehow OK to allow arguably the easiest way to deliver a lethal blow freely into the hands of people whose mindset is so skewed.

Most of the people who commit gun crimes steal their weapons from rightful, legal owners. And no matter how much I am in support of liberty, freedom and the rest of that, I think that more restrictions should be placed on any legal owner. If I had a pet lion (OK, going out on a limb here), you'd expect me to ensure that it couldn't break loose on the neighborhood. I only think it's right that owners of dangerous weapons, like guns, should be required to have a gun safe and to securely store their guns inside one when not in use.

on Dec 14, 2008

One more thing – you're saying that there are other crimes that are far higher in the UK than in the US and it's because guns are more freely available. So what you're saying is that if I live in the US, my home has a lower chance of being burglarized and my possessions have a lower chance of being stolen, but I have a higher chance of being killed. Am I reading this right? You'd rather be killed than have some stuff stolen from you?

on Dec 15, 2008

NHeerDesign
Holy incomplete argument, Batman.

Your first point is something that both of us can agree on. People comparing weapons of immense power to a 7-round pistol is flawed, to say the very least. However, that's where my agreement with you ends.

Talking about guns without bringing gun crime into the argument is silly. That's like talking about why we should ban alcohol without talking about any crimes that include alcohol – what's the point? I, too, would appreciate links to all relevant statistics and points that you made (my social sciences instructor would fail you at the moment). In 2006-2007, there were 50 gun murders in the UK (PDF source). Crimes that involved a firearm totaled 634 in the same period. 

It's interesting that you draw comparisons to a European country. According to this document (with sources), of the top 10 worst cities for gun murders in the USA or European regions, 8 were in the US. Only one city in the top-20 list is from the UK. 

If we break it down to a per-100,000 rating for regions, which removes the population from the equation, the UK has 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. For comparison, the US has 5.5. Canada has a rate of 1.7. If guns make society safer, why is the USA's murder rate so relatively high? 

I briefly mentioned that list of unsafe cities in the US and in Europe. The only UK city in the top 20 list is Belfast, Northern Ireland. Even though it's the most dangerous city in the UK, it's safer than the US, as a whole. 

While researching a bit for this reply, I came across a list of arguments against my point, in support of your view. It suggested that if you remove gun murders from all the murders committed in the USA, the States would still have a higher murder rate than Japan, Australia or the UK, therefore eliminating the argument that guns are the problem. They then go on to state that it must be a more complex social issue that is the root cause, not lax gun laws. While I see their point, I fail to understand how monumentally stupid it is. I don't see how it's somehow OK to allow arguably the easiest way to deliver a lethal blow freely into the hands of people whose mindset is so skewed.

Most of the people who commit gun crimes steal their weapons from rightful, legal owners. And no matter how much I am in support of liberty, freedom and the rest of that, I think that more restrictions should be placed on any legal owner. If I had a pet lion (OK, going out on a limb here), you'd expect me to ensure that it couldn't break loose on the neighborhood. I only think it's right that owners of dangerous weapons, like guns, should be required to have a gun safe and to securely store their guns inside one when not in use.

 

Start taking away liberties we wont have many left down the road. I Love how you guys preach about safty.... Wanna live in china? You punish law abiding citz meanwhile not solving the problem. People that are not to have guns WILL get guns some how some way... look at drugs.

on Dec 15, 2008

watertown1978

 
Start taking away liberties we wont have many left down the road. I Love how you guys preach about safty.... Wanna live in china? You punish law abiding citz meanwhile not solving the problem. People that are not to have guns WILL get guns some how some way... look at drugs.

How much does what I said punish law-abiding citizens? All I've suggested are measures to put guns in safe hands and to avoid the wrong hands. The measure I've suggested is via a gun safe that owners must have. This seems perfectly reasonable.

Also, China has an extremely, ridiculously low gun crime rate, though this is because of a blanket ban on guns. 

on Dec 15, 2008

NHeerDesign

watertown1978comment 11
 
Start taking away liberties we wont have many left down the road. I Love how you guys preach about safty.... Wanna live in china? You punish law abiding citz meanwhile not solving the problem. People that are not to have guns WILL get guns some how some way... look at drugs.


How much does what I said punish law-abiding citizens? All I've suggested are measures to put guns in safe hands and to avoid the wrong hands. The measure I've suggested is via a gun safe that owners must have. This seems perfectly reasonable.

Also, China has an extremely, ridiculously low gun crime rate, though this is because of a blanket ban on guns. 

 

YEah great China is awesome ...why dont you move there? O thats right because they dont have rights like me and you do.

 

Look I am all for better training with guns... thats fine. But as soon as you start to limit what people can buy or do ( withen reason... there is no need for nukes now ) your taking away liberties that our founding fathers fought for and gave us.  As the years go by people tend to forget that.. in fact most kids cant even tell you the true meaning of the 4th of July

on Dec 15, 2008

I can understand when people need weapons to feel safe but this "guns are needed to claim civil rights against government" is a bit strange considering two of the most successful revolutions of the 20th century had been accomplished by being peaceful: India and eastern Germany.  People chanted "no violence" and it worked; I don't even want to imagine what the Communist Parties of Russia and Eastern Germany had done if there had been 70000 gun-wielding demonstrants on 9th october 1989 in Leipzig.

on Dec 15, 2008

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

If your AK47 can't take down a stealth bomber, you'll never win against the US state if it decides to put you down.

Arguments that guns protect against a malicious state are a bit redundant considering how incredibly sophisticated military weaponry is compared to civilian varieties.

7 Pages1 2 3  Last