Well, Alex, I hope we can keep the debate civilized. I am certainly trying to do so, and I know you are, also. I guess the crux of what I am saying is, as you have paraphrased, is that I feel that your total freedom to own a gun may well result in increased danger to me, since most guns used in crimes are stolen from their registered owners in burglaries.
If someone is totally dedicated to killing me, and is targeting me specifically, there is little chance of my deflecting an attack because eventually I will place myself in a vulnerable position. Therefore, owning a gun in that circumstance may well not save me. As I said yesterday, if I am surprised in my home by a criminal, the chances of my gun being used against me are greater than those of my being able to mount a defense and deflect the attack, caught by surprise. And then we have this quote from the url you provided--" The
primary purpose of the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to prepare them for military service, as the Miller court and many other courts have assumed, but is to allow them to act as a credible counterweight to the government's military forces." Well, we have modern armed forces with airplanes, very sturdy tanks and nuclear weapons, so that doesn't seem to be much of a realistic possibility. I notice there is quite a difference between your source and mine on the Miller decision, and would appreciate further clarification.
In my opinion, we are then left with who is deserving of more rights--the people who want to be in a militia movement, and/or feel that they should be able to own and carry handguns, or me, and all the victims of gun violence in this very violent society. I will have to look for reputable statistics, and see what how violence escalates as guns become more prevalent or less available in different countries.
What I don't think the pro-gun people may understand is that I have a right to feel safe on the streets, to know when my daughter is playing at a friend's house that she won't be shot by some stupid young child playing with a gun, or that I won't be blown away for my purse when I am walking around downtown. Teenage gun deaths are so common in the San Francisco Bay Area that every weekend, there are REALLY TINY, one paragraph stories in the paper about how many teenagers were killed in San Jose, East Palo Alto, Concord, or in our own Mission district. This really isn't perceived as very newsworthy at all, since anyone can tell by the size of the article, the location and names of the victims that they are poor black or chicano youth. Do you remember that article I posted to you awhile ago where the conclusion mentioned that there are people who believe the tolerance for gunplay among these groups is racism playing out? At first I thought that was paranoid, but I can see how some might think that way.
We already have "use a gun, go to prison" laws, incidentally. Some people argue very rationally that these laws INCREASE fatalities, as criminals don't want to leave witnesses and become more desperate. I personally think we should support our policemen, who for the most part do incredible work in environments that are extremely dangerous. Even if we allow handguns, I would certainly support them in their efforts to get armor-piercing bullets and very powerful weapons outlawed. What need does the average citizen really have for these, or for hand grenades?
You said "But I am not willing at this point to accept that gun crime goes up or down in lockstep with private gun ownership." Do you have any statistics that would support this? I would be really interested in studying them, and I will look for some of my own when I feel a little better. < : ) |
