America Needs More Guns

Let's face it. We need more guns.

We know the criminals have them. That's how we can tell they're criminals. That guy pointing a gun at you? Probably a criminal. Unless, of course, he's a cop. They have guns too. But they usually wear uniforms and let you know they're a cop by yelling out something like, "Police! Stop!" Unless, of course, he's an undercover cop. He could be an undercover cop. Unless, of course, he's just an ordinary citizen, and he feels threatened. It could be that. But, probably, he's a criminal.

So, there are criminals, citizens, cops, security guards, body guards and any number of pseudo cop-like people with guns. We have guns in our homes, guns on our streets, guns in our national parks, guns in our airplanes, guns in the hands of our children and guns where drunk people hang out. Occasionally, we have guns at our political rallies, guns on our NFL players and soon, hopefully, on Amtrak.

But, still, we do not appear to have enough guns. The tragic shooting yesterday on our largest military base indicates that even when almost everyone in the vicinity has access to a gun, we are still not safe. Just one day later, the latest disgruntled employee rampage demonstrates that people aren't even safe in a state where you can own a gun, carry it in public and shoot anyone you think is dangerous.

So, with guns everywhere, what are we to do to protect ourselves? The answer is simple. Guns are not everywhere. Guns are in lots of places, but they are certainly not everywhere. We can change that.

We can begin by installing guns on every floor of every building, residential and commercial, churches and schools, like fire extinguishers. Break glass. Remove gun. Shoot the bad guy. But we cannot be sure that someone will be able to get to these guns in time. So, we should develop new technologies that embed computer controlled guns in walls. Giant supercomputers would then determine if a threat warrants retaliation and, if so, would automatically aim and discharge the firearms.

The same auto-fire mechanisms should be installed in trees in our parks, lampposts overlooking our streets and lifeguard stands on our beaches. You know what might be cool? Maybe we could even find a way to attach them to birds. Though we'd have to be careful to only use pigeons and sparrows; not ducks. We wouldn't want them firing back at duck hunters. As an added bonus, developing these technologies will be a boon to our economy. We'd get personal and economic security wrapped up in one program.

Undoubtedly, some tree hugging, soft on crime, Second Amendment hating lefty will use today's latest tragic shooting to, once again, make a case for what they'll call sensible gun laws. But do not listen (as if anyone will). The right answer is not less guns, but more. For the last decade, politicians and the NRA have been making it easier and easier for people in almost every state to obtain, carry and use guns, and yet our criminal gun violence is not stopping, or even slowing. It seems to be getting worse, actually. So, if what we're doing is not working, the answer is clear. Do more of it. Much, much more.

 

Comments

[Gregory P]

The problem with regulation of power is that it means you have to trust the person or people doing the regulating- and they are what? Other people. What makes them more qualified than yourself? You are, in fact, giving them authority and control over quite a large bit of power that would otherwise be spread out over millions of people. You have to give them your power and trust that they will both micromanage it better than each individual could manage it and not harm you with it. That's a lot of trust.

Some people simply do not want to manage some of the power they have access to. They feel uncomfortable with it. They'd rather turn it over to someone they feel is more qualified. At the same time, they feel uncomfortable giving up that power knowing that people around them, especially people with whom they strongly disagree and therefore don't trust, still retain it.

So, do you want to leave power spread out over millions of people, some of whom you don't feel are qualified, or simply don't trust, or would you rather take up all that power and put it into the hands of a few that you absolutely do trust?

That is an eternal debate and the opposing sides will never be reconciled.

[gjdagis]

As soon as guns are removed from the possession of the government, then we can talk. The power belongs to the people and as long as the government has absolute control over the use of force our rights consist of only what the government wants to allow us at any one time.

[mbagen]

This is the sort of sarcasm that has taken the place of a realistic appraisal of self-defense via firearms. This is why the standard "libertarian" has become a meaningless umbrella that, on the moderate left consists of sensible gun-owners with a better grasp of police priorities, the realities of crime, and an awareness of history. It's not that guns make you safe...only safer. Everyday life is a gamble, and, as they say, Smith & Wesson beats four aces.

When and where people consider firearms a better investment than taxes, then you're in trouble. I believe that we passed that point some time ago. If you want to know why people lean on guns, look to that dynamic.