"Because the state can no longer protect us from crime, it wants to take away from us the means of protecting ourselves."
Unfortunately, there is a large percentage of the populace that agrees that unarmed people=people safe from violent crime.
Fools.
-------------------------------------
I had an ugly conversation with a rabid anti-gun
You'd be proud of me... I didn't let his drivel provoke me to violence. I didn't need to. He's digging his own grave with his inability to grasp the truth.
It started with him chastising me for teaching the PC about responsible gun handling and for teaching her how to shoot pistols, rifles and shotguns.
It quickly digressed into a discussion on violence in society, social decline and the role of gun control in a safe and sane society.
I've been letting this fester all weekend and I need to vent...
First, I was able to get my esteemed anti-gun friend to agree to a few givens...
-That the police, by and large, are a bunch of donut-eating report writers. The average police officer thinks that the best way to keep the peace ("Protect and Serve") would to take all civilians and lock them in private cells.
Take away their car keys too. If they aren't on the road, they aren't speeding or carrying out acts of road rage.
If we manacle them to a wall in their own homes, they aren't out committing crimes.
If they are alone, they can't commit crimes of domestic violence.
So... Since police can no longer protect us from crime, it is left to the law abiding citizen to provide for his own protection.
(Unless you live in NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, Most of California, on any place with high crime rates and draconian gun control laws... In which case you're screwed.)
How should we do this?
Anti-Gun Friend:Everyone would be safer if no one but police had any guns.
Yours Truly: Alas, the genie is out of the bottle. Restate your argument.
A-GF:Well... How about this: If you don't have a gun in your house, there is no chance of an accidental shooting.
YT: Actually, there is no chance of an accidental shooting right now, even though there are several guns there.
A-GF: Oh, but there is... your daughter could accidentally shoot one of her friends or one of your family BECAUSE there are guns there.
YT: No... Statistically, kids who are taught responsible gun handling have virtually a null chance of accidentally shooting themselves or others. Don't get me wrong- it CAN happen, but education is the key.
If a 15 year old who has watched his parents drive their car his whole life and seen it on TV thousands of times, would you expect him to step behind the wheel the first time and be able to hold his own on the highway? No- you TEACH them how to drive, and how to drive safely.
If you take a child shooting, train them how to use the gun, explain proper gun handling concepts - especially safety- this will bring the chances of an accidental shooting to a minimum.
A-GF: Well.. Maybe. But still... Having a gun... Don't you think that violence begets violence?
YT: Absolutely- It is one of my missions in life. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy. And not just violent crime deserves a vigorous response... I'm not saying that the 12 year old you see shoplifting should be killed to keep him from becoming the next Ted Bundy. He should be disciplined by his parents to prevent that. But the guy in your living room at 2:38 a.m. isn't trying to sign you up for the local glee club & probably isn't interested in reforming his ways...
A-GF: But that is a matter for the police and the prosecutors...
YT: Again, you're counting on the police preventing the burglar/rapist from entering your house. Exactly how is that done?
A-GF:I protect my home. I lock my doors and windows... I don't need the police to keep people out.
YT:So, you're saying no one could break into your home.
A-GF: Well... No. I guess if someone really wanted to, they could get in- but I'd hear them and call 911.
YT: Snip! Telephone line is cut before the break-in. (Guess how often that happens on a home invasion robbery.)
A-GF: I have a cell phone.
YT: You sleep with it? I'd have to go the kitchen to get mine, where I keep in on the charger. Where is yours at night.
A-GF: Seriously- is your stuff worth killing someone for?
YT:That's the question that the burglar/rapist/criminal should ask -
"Is the stuff in this house worth dying for?"
Personally, I'd say 'No'. But that doesn't mean I won't shoot him if he tries to take it.
For him, the value of my 'stuff' is low - just the few dollars he'd be able to pawn it for, or the cheap thrill he gets from taking it.
But to me many of those items are precious beyond words, treasured mementos of people, places, and times. That cheap little thing you may take just to laugh at and destroy may be the one and only thing I have left from someone deeply beloved and long gone. That link is worth protecting.
And as to the rest of my 'stuff' you should keep in mind that those are pieces of my life that you're taking. I worked to get those things and no insurance company will ever be able to give me the portion of my life I expended to get something back.
All of that ignores the other, more practical reasons why he's risking his life stealing from me.
I cannot know what his intentions are. He says (now) that he was only going to steal and would never hurt anyone. But the problem is that many other thieves are willing to harm my loved ones and I so I have to treat all thieves as dangerous. (Obviously this is a valid assumption. It's the same one that DHS uses to invade my privacy when I have to go through the security screening at an airport.)
Besides, no matter what he intends now, how can I be sure (sure enough to bet my life) that he won't change his mind when confronted?
All in all, the most reasonable thing for me when he tries to rob me is to presume that if he's willing to steal, he's willing to do additional harm as well and do what I can to protect myself and my loved ones.
Which means I will shoot him.
(You don't want to get shot. It's quite painful and, of course, there's a significant risk that you will die.)
And I don't think anything I own is worth you risking your life to steal, so please don't put yourself in a position to be killed over something so trivial as my 'stuff'. But don't kid yourself... If you don't belong here, you will be shot.
(Something my daughter will need to come to grips with later in life if there was to be a surprise late-night visit from a overzealous boyfriend)
A-GF: I still don't agree that a house with a gun in it is safer than a house with without a gun in it.
YT:So can I plant a sign in your front yard with a list of your personal belongings and the words "There are no guns in this house."?
A-GF: No...I don't think that's a good idea...
YT: But you still think that the only ones that should have the means to fight crime are the police?
A-GF: Yes...I think they are the ones who need guns. Not the homeowners.
YT: Want to give a guess about how often the cops show up when the burglar or rapist is still in your house? About 1 in 20. We agreed earlier that the police are report writers, taking notes and gathering evidence for the prosecutors... And I'll tell you now, there's no CSI:Jacksonville tracing evidence for every crime committed on the streets.
Why do you think Jacksonville was #1 in the state for murder in 2006?
Why do you think there are so many community initiatives like Citizen Academy, Citizen Volunteer Community Posse, Police Reserve/Police Explorers, and Sheriff's Advisory Councils?
The reason is that they are understaffed... Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford said in Dec 2007 that he needs 245 new cops just to keep afloat...New cops, not just applicants to cover attrition.
But if you think police patrols keep crime down- go on a ride-along sometime- you'll find that they patrol the high-crime areas, and tend to drive their beat on major highways. They aren't patrolling neighborhoods.
A-GF: Back to YOUR guns in YOUR house... I'm not casting aspersion on your capabilities of self defense, but isn't there a possibility of a criminal getting possession of one of your guns and killing you with it?
YT: Sure he could kill me with one of my guns, but he'll have to beat me to death with it, because it will be empty.
I didn't change his mind, and he didn't change mine...
I doubt he'll ever change his tune, until he is a victim of crime...that's usually when the change of opinion happens.
TBG, armed and very dangerous.
4 comments:
Words don't exist to accurately express how right you are, TBG. I was impressed with the pics of the PC handling the Walther so well. And jealous -- I want one! For the time being, anyone breaking into my house will have to look down the barrel of my .357 magnum revolver. And, unlike you see in TV and movies, I will NOT be talking to the fool while aiming my weapon at him. If someone's in my house uninvited, he/she will be shot. It's the law and it's the only deterrent that really works. So stick to your guns (so to speak) ...
Oh, Unca J - this was not too bad. :) I agree, it's very responsible of you to teach the PC to be responsible with guns. Great life skill - should the day come when she has to go all Red Dawn/Wolverines, she'll be the one to write everybody's name on a big rock at the end.
There's many facets of the gun control issue, and you and The Dude here covered a rather extreme one - "take away all the guns." I'm curious about where you stand on some of the issues in kind of the middle area - waiting periods, background checks, legalizing only certain types of guns, etc. Especially as that all relates to what seems like a rash of crazed gunmen on college campuses and shopping malls. Theft is bad and I suppose statistically more likely to happen to a person than being caught up in a mall massacre...but when you talk about violence in society and social decline, that's actually what I think about first. It seems like that behavior is growing more common (how many have taken place this year?) and is more senseless. At least a thief is trying to make a living, whereas a random shooter is just having a bad day and taking it out on other people.
It seems to me that training is a totally separate issue than intent and mental state. Is the opposite of "take away all the guns" REALLY "let anybody and everybody have guns" or do you subscribe to a middle ground in there somewhere?
I have no problem with background checks and reasonable waiting periods. I also would have no problem with mandatory training. I think that education on handling the firearm combined with plain-English explanations of the law are an excellent idea. Very very few violent crimes are committed with legally owned firearms.
In the same way that someone is less likely to break into a home that they think might have a gun-owning homeowner, lunatics intent on shooting as many people as they can seem oddly drawn to "gun free zones". They just don't go where they are likely to have armed opponents, and in the rare cases when they do, they are much less successful at shooting innocent people before someone stops them. Even if an armed citizen doesn't kill/incapacitate the attacker, simply forcing him to take cover gives people time to escape or hide. This tends to render his spree much less effective.
Who should be able to legally own and carry a weapon? I like the 'shall issue' method that Florida uses. They should be permitted to unless there is a compelling reason to bar them.
Just found your blog today. Did a search on google, for "nice body" looking for a picture. It found your post about "body shots" when drinking in some bar.
Started reading your rants. I truly enjoy them. I really like the vocabulary lessons I get. "you use your tungue prettier then a $20 whore" -Slim Pickens, Blazing Saddles.
Keep up the good work. really like seeing the pictures from your travels
Post a Comment