I haven’t been actively reading my feeds, so when I fired up the reader today, I saw Bill Kocik’s pro-gun essay in his blog.
Personally, I:
- Do not own my own firearm.
- Do not like the idea of anyone using firearms.
- Recognize that firearms exist and will never go away.
- Believe that someone is less likely to perpetuate a violent crime if the odds that they will get shot in retaliation increases.
- Believe that in a world where guns are readily available, a steady equilibrium of safety will eventually be reached–perhaps, unfortunately, after much death by guns. Those left remaining and still alive will learn to co-exist safely together.
- Do not believe that fewer guns is the answer. As long as the balance of power leans in favor of criminals, no one can be safe.
- Am thankful that there are people who responsibly own and carry firearms, so that I don’t have to.
Wishing that we could live in a world without firearms is just that: wishful thinking. The reality is that guns have been invented and that can never be undone. The only rational path to safety is reaching the point where enough people are carrying firearms so that using one inappropriately will be dealt with swiftly and abruptly: with deadly force.
Tags: liberty, safety, firearms, guns, violence, crime
Programmer, husband, father, singer, guitarist, tinkerer, reverse engineer, strange, and living in New Jersey. 
I generally stay out of gun ownership debates (it is virtually always an exercise in futility – not only will neither side convince the other of their position, both sides will remain baffled as to how the other side can even hold the position). Yet here I am…
My basic objection to guns is that they are deadly. They are created with the single purpose of eliminating another life. Take any situation. Add a gun. No matter if it was a deadly situation before, it is now. And this is a bad thing. Life is always preferable to death. It is better for someone to lose some property or be injured, than for someone to be killed. Including when that equation means say, me getting injured versus a mugger getting killed. It’s just not worth taking a life.
Perhaps surprisingly, I do not support banning guns outright, nor only allowing the police to have them. I think they should be controlled, tracked, and licensed. (At this point all the gun nuts jump up and say “the only reason to register our guns is so that they can be taken away.” Go ahead, jump. Doesn’t change my opinion.) I think there should be required training to own a gun, just like a car, so that if you do need to use your gun, you know how to use it right. (At this point the gun nuts jump up and say “I am responsible! But it’s my choice to be, imposing a restriction like training is just an attempt to take away my precious gun!” Go ahead, jump…) I think that people who object to waiting periods for guns (such as when there is civil disorder or rioting and they “need” a gun to protect themselves) are scared, and a scared person should not have a gun (because they are more likely to use it). I think that virtually any firing a gun outside of e.g., a firing range should be treated as a crime roughly equivalent to attempted murder; merely brandishing a gun should be treated as assault. Concealed carry permits I don’t have a strong opinion on – I think it’s a bit silly to carry a gun and I think people who do it do so to feel big, but on its own merits I don’t have a strong objection to a well-trained citizen carrying.
Perhaps unfairly, I have a poor view of gun enthusiasts. They all talk about liberty and safety and rights but honestly, I think they just mostly like guns.
Bang-bang.
Jeff: I agree, guns are deadly. I wish they had never been invented.
However, good reality testing dictates that we must accept that they have been invented and do exist and will always exist regardless of the laws of man. Given that, what is the best way to adjust to this reality?
I suggest that making legitimate gun ownership more difficult only shifts the balance of power into the hands of criminals, which makes life more unsafe for everyone. Therefore, it’s a poor strategy–or, at least worse than putting the appropriate amount of guns in the hands of legitimate, responsible citizens.
I am a far cry from being a “gun nut”–matter of fact, if I had the supernatural ability to destroy mankind’s knowledge of firearms entirely, to wipe it out such that guns did not exist, I would. There is no place in this world for such a destructive technology. However, such a super-ability does not exist. Accepting that, I would prefer guns to be so abundant that to use one would be suicide.
Violent crime is at 99,9 pct committed by extremely stupid people. So limiting the general availability of weapons is pretty obviously going to reduce gunshots.
clearly argue that the price of having the liberty to own a gun is worth more than the death it generates.
it is a question of balance and priority…
you choose, it’s what they call democracy..