The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

20 January 2011

Idiot at the NY Times (or is that redundant?) goes after guns, gets "shot down" in comments section

...big surprise, right?  Bob Herbert writes an essay filled with spun statistics and collectivist sentiment in yesterday's New York Times.

Below, a reader of the article left a comment, which I felt was eloquent and well reasoned.  

Wish I'd written it:

"Although we agree on our outrage when it comes to the senseless killing at the hands of a criminal with a gun, we differ in our solutions to fix the problem.

First, your broad generalization of gun owners makes me uneasy. If I were to make the same sweeping statements about another group of Americans, my points would be written off as uneducated. The fact is, the majority of gun owners are responsible and careful with their firearms. the fact is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in the US. The number of shooting deaths per year by comparison is so small that they would be difficult to quantify otherwise.

Yes. One death is too many. We can also agree on this point. However, I haven't found away to keep everyone from dying from everything. Have you? Senseless acts, accidents, criminal actions happen all the time. And like any rational person, I abhor them. I denounce them. But my first thought is not to take freedoms away from the innocent.

Your statistic of 100,000 shootings per year is on target. However, if you break those numbers down I think your logic fails. How many are drug related? How many are law enforcement officers defending themselves or others? How many attributed to accidents? How many are civilians defending themselves? It's not as easy as you think to categorise shootings as one large group. So why attack the inanimate gun as the solution to all of these issues?

Do you like to have a glass of wine or a beer? Be thankful that no one has tried to ban alcohol after a bad weekend of DUIs ending in numerous deaths. How about smoking a cigar? Why haven't we banned tobacco? Motorcycles? How about football? There is risk of death or injury in almost everything, so why is it that we turn to banning guns/magazines when a criminal makes criminal choices. There are already laws against killing, threatening, injuring, discharging a firearm, carrying a firearm, proper storage of a firearm and more. Enforce those laws. Do not punish the innocent.

As much as we hate to hear it, freedom isn't free. It's a difficult notion to grasp, especially for the victims. But there will always be victims, no matter how hard we try. Don't turn everyone in to victims by banning there right to own firearms responsibly.

I'll save my constitutional arguments for another time.

Are guns dangerous? Yes. All guns? Yes. From the single shot .410 shotgun to an AR-15 rifle. They all can injure or kill. With the proper training, knowledge and respect. We can reduce these ultimate consequences, while remembering that everything we do, carries inherent risk. Let's agree on some licensing/training standards where everyone is taught to respect the power of firearms. This may be a departure from the typical pro-gun argument, but I believe it is a reasonable one.

When has prohibition worked for anything in America? Why are firearms any different?"

January 18th, 2011
9:41 am

1 comment:

  1. Good facts in the argument. I agree with him 90%. But...more "reasonable" restrictions and controls, ie "licensing/training standards" were brought up.


    No more reasonable anything. I won't surrender any more liberty, no matter how "reasonable".

    I won't be reasonable about my liberty.

    I really do appreciate the commenter's stand, his logic and reason, and his willingness to speak out. Really though, it is the incremental steps, such as "reasonable" ones like he proposed that pose the most threat to our liberty.

    The solution to Arizona, to "gun violence" in general? The same as the solution to many societal problems. Less government, not more.