My original point wasn’t that including “bearing arms” didn’t make sense at the time of Constitutional Drafting (it definitely did make sense given the circumstances). My point was that if the Framers had access to a crystal ball that let them see how outrageous the gun-death toll would eventually become, “bearing arms” might not have been part of the Constitution.
I’m against the individual ownership of guns. I don’t need them to feel personally safe or equalized. And owning them and weilding them as an individual ensures great risk.
Here’s why: in the global sailing/cruising coterie, there’s an industry rag called “Cruising World”. Everyone reads it who dreams of sailing around the world or is actually active in sailing around the world. There’s always news from the latitudes that discusses dangerous areas to cruise. These include the coastal waters of Columbia, Yemen, Africa, etc. As part of these articles is always the terrible, sad story of cruisers killed by pirates or drug lords. As it always turns out, the cruisers aren’t killed for their boat or personal possessions. They’re shot the minute they decide to pull out a gun from below deck.
In the international waters of no-holds-barred, you get killed when you pull out a gun. Every cruiser knows that owning a gun is the surest way to get killed. Owning a gun under the pretense of equalization is subscribing to the arms-race fallacy that led to the U.S.-Soviet buildup: peace is only attained when through a balance in firepower. What’s worst is trying to gain superior firepower because cruisers can only provoke. Many stories of boaters pulling out big canons and scaring off pirates temporarily until all the pirate cavalry comes in.
This is in international waters. At home we have laws and a somewhat higher standard of criminal conduct 🙂 But the truth is set in my mind — I don’t win by owning a gun because I don’t set the field equal, I only provoke. To me, the gun is an instant death instrument, not a sense of security or protection.
Guns
I go back and forth. When my house was robbed, I WANTED a gun (decided against it), I know that liquor store owners are safer because they have one. If I’m lost in DC, I’d feel safer knowing I could shoot the dude who was coming to carjack me.
That being said, I followed someone too close once, and had them brandish a gun in the car in front of me, I backed off, but it seemed a bit extreme.
the idea of everyone having a gun means that the guy who usually puts up his finger too fast in traffic will have a gun handy. The guy who feels that some random dude was checking out his girlfriend will too. the guy who is frustrated because the concert he wants is sold out, the guy who gets fired, the guy who gets in the fight at his son’t little league game.. all will have a gun handy, and these are guys who lose their cool anyway.
Besides, not everyone is a good shot. At least having only knives would mean you would only kill your intended target. There are lotsa bullets in a gun. what happens when its Zach, or Christy, or Juli, or Kelly or Me or You standing behind the intended victim and a bullet goes through or misses. Its too big a risk.
the places where everybody does have a gun (ghetto areas in the US, third world countries, 1800’s new mexico etc) are (were) VERY dangerous places to be, where murder is so common its not even shocking anymore.
I am not against abolishing guns.. but people shouldnt be carrying them around.
Life isn’t safe
Here’s my point: If we could eliminate guns, then we should do it. But, we can’t, just like we can’t stop drugs or this vice or that vice. So, if someone is going to be psycho and point a gun at me, then I want a gun to point back. I believe that if someone knows I have a gun on me, then they’re much less likely to try and do something to me. Yes, there’s a great risk in owning a weapon. I have a 16-month old son, and trust me, I know the risks, BUT…life is full of risks and rewards, and if I want to know I have a hand in my family’s safety, then that’s a risk I’ll have to take. As long as I take the responsibility that comes with the risk, then hopefully everything will go well.
bystanders
The problem is, what about those people who don’t want the risk or the responsibility and they end up getting gunned down not by criminals, but by a husband that would have just slammed the door otherwise.. or what if they’re just standing behind the intended victim.
My point is, there are too many non-premeditated crimes of passion or anger.. and there are so many issues of domestic violence.. I know for a fact that if the majority of people had guns, there are people I know who would have been killed by people who just hit them or threw a chair at them in the moment.
And I know too many people whose kids have accidentally stumbled onto a gun. Heck, I had a bullet fly through my house in Richmond because someone who had a gun was not responsible. Now the idea of “yuo have to take responsibility” is all well and good, but if you DON’T, its generally not YOU who suffers.. its the person on the other end of the muzzle.