Do You Need a Gun?
I don't. I hope never to find myself in a situation where I would have needed one to protect my life--though I concede that this is a dire possibility in a country where guns seem so prevalent. They are designed for only one purpose: to kill. And I myself am enough in tune with Buddhist teachings to believe that the taking of life is wrong in any circumstance--and, yes, that includes the saving of my own. I'm not naïve enough to believe that I wouldn't resort to violence in order to preserve my life, but I would not prepare for that contingency with the purchase of a gun.
In this context, I find it strange and profoundly unsettling that in all the news media reports on the recent senseless killing sprees in Nebraska and Colorado, I have heard virtually nothing about the guns that were used. If anyone has been speculating about how a deadly assault weapon ended up in the hands of a teenager who was well known by authorities to be mentally unstable and a young man whose rage and hatred were already on record, I have not heard or read it.
I'm ready to stick my neck way out here and say that I find it incomprehensible and disgraceful that this sad history should have been allowed to repeat itself yet again in a country that suffers the evident delusion of being civilized. It's incomprehensible and disgraceful that the question is not in the headlines of the media and on the tongue of every presidential candidate.
And has anyone given any thought to how sad it is that a church should need to employ armed guards in this "Christian" country? Apparently the Colorado case is confirmation of the need for such protection, since the assassin was killed (in a timely fashion, true) by a woman security officer. We can be grateful to this brave woman that many lives were spared, and at the same time rue the fact that her presence was necessary.
Is this not yet another piece of evidence that what we are pleased to tout to the rest of the world as our "democracy" is, at best, a malfunctioning oligarchy, at worst, a mere plutocracy? Are we not ashamed that a small minority of fanatics should be able to intimidate our leaders and our representatives into continued support for a policy that the vast majority find loathsome? How could anyone in their right mind believe that those who authored the founding documents of this country intended that fire power be readily available to morons and maniacs alike ("militias," anyone?)--let alone weapons of a destructive power that would have been unimaginable to those good men?
I am perplexed. Here is candidate Rudy Giuliani, formerly a rational proponent of gun control to stem the violence in the city of which he once was mayor, now doing a volte-face in order to escape the displeasure of the National Rifle Association and its followers. There is a row of Republican candidates confronted with an absurd and hostile UTube question from a pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands yahoo, rushing to surrender simple good sense to political contingency.
As for the Democratic candidates, check this out: Senator Biden "does not have a policy on gun control." Senator Clinton "does not have a policy on gun control." Senator Barack Obama "does not have a policy on gun control." Same with Edwards, Of the whole bunch of them, only Sen. Mike Gravel even has a statement: "While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment," it reads, "he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one." Well, bully for him. But what a weak-kneed, milquetoast qualification. (Dennis Kucinich, I'm happy to say, was rated "F" by the NRA, but I could not find a policy statement on his site.)
So where is sanity? When do we begin to recognize that not every American citizen needs, or has a right to an assault weapon to protect his home, his family, his person. As for those who choose to hunt deer, or bears, or rabbits, or squirrels, or whatever other of God's creatures they like to assassinate, are shotguns and rifles not weaponry enough for their valiant efforts?
Actually, I'm beyond perplexed. I'm outraged. And no, I don't need to go our and buy a gun for my defense.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If a person lives in a nice high-end neighborhood with a well financed and responsive police department or as a 'war correspondent' is surrounded by scores of heavily armed allied soldiers it is easy to look around and sniff that one doesn't need a firearm.
SCOTUS ruled explicitly that the 'police' are not obligated to provide protection to anyone. Their obligation is limited to responding in good faith to a call for assistance ONLY IF one succeeds in communicating the need for assistance. The response can be limited by budget and circumstances.
Personal protection is not just an individual right but an obligation and responsibility of the individual. This is one factor in the success of firearms rights groups in passing conceal carry laws in 40 or so states, most 'shall-issue' states.
What religion has to do with 'being a victim'?
http://www
Politically, the firearms issue is a loser. Refer to Pres. Clinton's statements re firearms laws and the transfer of Congress in the mid 90s. He, like Kusinich actually wanted to ban handgun possession by civilians. Forget it, won't happen. One can try the usual associating millions with the actions of a few to pass laws but it hasn't, isn't and won't work. Try proposing laws that target the problem rather than the massive majority who are not the problem.
As for what the world thinks consider Europe. We intervened twice last century and have tens of thousands of troops garrisoned there and if we were to leave those monkey-brained asses would go back to killing each other by the tens of millions.
Sanity and choice of weapon for home defense? What are mistakenly labeled as 'assault weapons' are the best choice. Handguns are clumsy and difficult to aim and handle. Shotguns are way too dangerous as they launch 12 or more pellets per shot resulting in shredding the target and scattering projectiles around the point of aim. A semi-auto such as the AK or AR variants is ideal.
To achieve a successful democratic free society where the only legal guns are in the hands of authorities assumes two prerequisites:
1)The armed authorities do a near-perfect job of protecting un-armed and therefore vulnerable citizenry from illegally armed criminals.
2)The armed authorities are worthy of complete and utter trust from the un-armed and therefore vulnerable citizenry.
I think I'll keep my guns, legally or illegally.
Where is sanity?! You can ask that after seven years of sociopathic bush and his band of delusional cronies? There is no more sanity in amurica buddy. You are spitting into the wind. Of course, the other conversation that has not taken place is why this young man did not receive the mental health services he needed. Access to mental health treatment in this country is a disgrace and far too many people still consider a mental disorder to be a reflection of a character weakness rather than an uncontrollable disorder. I guess we just keep killing each other and hope some mythical sky creature will sort it out.
My individual right to bear arms is one of the few things that could potentially protects me from a fascist government run amuck.
Our founding fathers were only too familiar with this necessity and enshrined it in our Bill of Rights. Even if you choose the militia argument - consider how difficult it would be to assemble an effective militia with un-armed citizens..
I lived in a nice suburb of Ft. Lauderdale during hurricane Wilma. Wilma was a piddling category one storm that knocked down lots of trees and powerlines. It was not a major storm, but the city was off line for a week or so. Phones and cell towers were down. The only way to call out was to drive to the top of highway overpass two miles away.
Looters arrived in my neighborhood within hours of the storm subsiding. At 2 pm a guy was in my fenced back yard trying to rip off my generator. At 1 am that night a guy was checking my doors and windows. at 5 am I awoke to see a guy staring in by back sliding door. What I didn't see was a police car. For two days not one police car. Not one.
I took very little for our little society to collapse temporarly. We were in many ways on our own. There were to things I learned. The first was that the authorities were not to be relied on for protection. The second was that the looters were very non-confrontational based on the presumption that their victims could be armed.
I was glad I had a gun. I never used, carried, or brandished it - it stayed in the house. Without it I would have been defenseless.
Before becoming a professional mariner, (Captain now) I travelled the world as a news cameraman. I covered 4 wars. In all that time I never felt the need to carry a gun.
Odd isn't it that a few hillbillies and weirdo's that have never been outside their mommies protective wing think they need to be armed at all times.
In my trade we call little cowards, "Frillies".
You know, like did you crap your little frillies son.
I think it's great that the author has never needed a gun. It would be wonderful if everyone could say the same. Unfortunately that's not the case. Below are listed a few of the dozens of instances I usually post on anti gun columns of law abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves and others. I'll probaly get around to posting a few dozen more in the morning.
In order to stay under 350 words I'm only listing the source and date of the articles involving defensive uses of firearms. Please note I didn't have to reach back years to find these cases.
El Dorado News (El Dorado, AR 07/28/07)
The Dallas Morning News (Dallas, TX 07/05/07)
The Gabber (Gulfport, FL 07/12/07)
The Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL 07/12/07)
The Record Herald (Waynesboro, PA 07/02/07)
The Greenville News (Greenville, SC 09/12/07)
Statesman Journal (Salem, OR 09/20/07)
Daily Press (Victorville, CA 09/26/07)
Daily Herald (Provo, UT 09/18/07)
St. Tammany News (Covington, LA 08/29/07)
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA 06/15/07)
The Oregonian (Portland, OR 06/30/07)
Tulsa World (Tulsa, OK 06/26/07)
Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, FL 06/22/07)
News Channe 5 WTVF (Nashville, TN 06/18/07)
Manteca Bulletin (Manteca,CA 06/11/07)
The Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas,NV 08/15/07)
The Times-Picayune (New Orleans,LA 08/23/07)
The Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus,GA 08/24/07
The Macomb Daily (Mount Clemens,MI 08/21/07)
The Salt Lake Tribune (Salt Lake City,UT 08/08/07)
For those that feel like clicking I suggest checking out www.clayto
If the author really believes that Biden, Clinton, Obama and Edwards don't have a policy on guns (despite their websites postings) he really needs to catch up on his politics and news.
Americans need guns to protect themselves from the government.
In the event of a disaster you will be sorry that you don't have a gun.
Guns are tools. No inanimate objects should be prohibited to citizens except for WMDs.
A war on Guns would fail just like the war on some drugs has.
Violence would increase as gangs started dealing in guns as well as drugs.
In fact the cause for all this recent violence is Drug Prohibition.
I will bet anyone one years salary that if all laws creating drug prohibition are repealed violence will drop 50% within 2 years.
The police would actually start dealing with real criminals instead of small time , non-violent drug dealers.
the USA has 5% of the worlds population , and over 25% of the worlds prisoners.
this is all because of drug prohibition.
Guns cost money and they are purchased with money from illegal drug sales.
Criminals will not have the resources to buy guns without Drug prohibition inflating the prices of drugs from pennies to hundreds of dollars.
Forget the Gun thing....E
I see. If you don't like a gun, label it an "assault rifle", and then it can be banned. Don't like hunting? Label hunting rifles "high power sniper weapons" and ban them.
"those who authored the founding documents of this country" never envisioned the internet either. I guess that means freedom of the press should only apply to that big jack-screw thing in the Ben Franklin illustrations.
You wrote: "And I myself am enough in tune with Buddhist teachings to believe that the taking of life is wrong in any circumstance--and, yes, that includes the saving of my own."
On May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
See:
http://www
I am as liberal as they come--in most areas. but I have several guns. Uncle Sammy did a good job of teaching me to shoot at an expert level with the AR-15/M-16 series of rifles. So, having been out of the service for almost 40 years, I still go out about once a month and put lots of tiny (.223/5.56 mm) holes in paper targets from at least 100 meters distance. (It's more challenging at 200 meters or even 300 meters, but it's a long walk to pick up the targets.) I can't run as fast as I did when I was in the service, so I compensate by being able to shoot straighter and faster then I could when I was younger. I am not religious in any way, so the idea of taking a life is moot. I am not a person who starts fights, but I've always believed that if someone brings the fight to me, I will give as good, or better, than I am getting. The idea of being able to live peacefully is a beautiful concept, but practically, the world in which we live can be violent and brutal. I would hope that things never get so bad that we don't have the protection of the military and/or the police, but if the worst comes, I will defend my community, my neighborhood, my family from those who would do us harm to the best of my ability.
I own guns. Twice, I have been saved from harm by having one on my person when crazed drunks attempted assaults. One attempt was an ex-husband attempting to beat my girlfriend ( his ex-wife ) thinking ( I guess ) I would just stand there in passivity or scramble for my cellphone. I pulled the weapon; he ran; she called 911. he rec'd both domestic violence and breaking and entering convictions. BTW, I vote Democrat. The Second Amendment has a bonus: It also ensures that neo-fascist politicians can't overwhelm our society and waterboard we citizens who disagree with their wars, psycho schemes, and total domination over our households. Think about it.
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
CA citizens recently outed a whole city commission because they wanted to award blackwater and civilian targeted "homeland security" contract.
i admire your budhist principles i do. i believe in peaceful disobedience, but i also respect the person that stands firm on their property and will dare to shoot a tyranical servent of the oligarchy in order to protect his or her family or rights.
the 2nd ammendment is the only stand-alone ammendment that can guarantee the rest.
Often, people don't become criminals until after the first shot is fired. Check these stories and see what you think.
http://www
Loading comments…
Posted December 13, 2007 | 07:00 PM (EST)