Fred:
I apologize in advance for the length.
Please understand that I have meant no personal attack on you or your
beliefs. One of the wonderful things about this country is the freedom
to dissent, set out in my beloved Constitution and inherent in natural
law. I merely hoped to gain a broader understanding of the positions of
those who hold views different than my own.
Let me state up front that I do not support all of the NRA's efforts. I
do not believe that a state cannot reasonably regulate my right to own
and carry a weapon. I do strongly believe in my right to protect myself,
my family, and my home. My beliefs, however, do not relieve me of my
responsibility to exercise care in my use and possession of guns.
You are quite right -- I don't think it is reasonable or even practical
to legislate objects simply because the object can be used in a manner
inconsistent with its intended purpose. Nor do I suggest that you
support such a position. I suspect that you feel that doing so would be
unreasonable, as it would remove responsibility from where it rightly
belongs -- with the person who acted criminally. As you have noted, the
problem was not with the baseball bat, but rather with the person who
wielded it.
Of course, you have also pointed out that a gun is an inherently
dangerous tool. I would agree with this but note that no gun is capable
of committing any act on its own. Just as a baseball bat must be swung,
so too must a trigger be pulled by someone who wishes to cause harm.
However, since you suggest that the determinative factor is that a gun is
designed to main and kill, would you also agree that edged weapons, such
as knives, are also designed to main and kill? If so, would you support
the banning or restrictive legislation of knives?
I note that all states include knives in their definitions of offensive
and / or concealable weapons, and that the last set of UCR statistics
show that knives are about as likely to be used in the commission of a
crime. Indeed, if it is a domestic situation (whether domestic abuse or
occuring in the home) an edged weapon or blunt instrument (such as a
baseball bat) is more likely to be used.
Of course, you might argue that edged weapons have a legitimate intended
purpose, and that it is the misuse of edged weapons that create the
problem. While this necessarily admits the validity of my position, it
would not be enough under your position to protect a kitchen arsenal.
I agree that the death you spoke of is a terrible thing; any death is.
However, I don't know the entire circumstances, and am reluctant to
accept any legal or moral interpretations without more information. I am
sure that you can understand my position.
Accepted as true for argument's sake, if the shooter was mad at someone
who wronged his daughter, and shot an innocent bystander, I don't think
that you can argue that the person was acting either reasonably or
lawfully in his possession or carry of a gun. I would suggest that the
shooter would have acted just as unreasonably and unlawfully if a
baseball bat had been at hand. Thus, I cannot accept "the fact he gunned
down the wrong person should be enough" to warrant denying me my right to
protect myself.
In other words, the actions of this one person were not typical of
responsible gun owners. The individual gun owners that I know possess
their weapons lawfully, exercise care and discretion in their use and
storage of the weapons, and would condemn the actions of the shooter you
described. The sheer numbers of weapons manufactured and possessed in
the US also suggest that this is true -- if there were a direct
correlation between the ownership of a gun and a propensity to do
criminal or stupid things, then there would be a greater number of
incidents of the type you describe.
If the legal carry of weapons actually caused more problems than it
cured, then Florida probably would have seen an dramatic increase in
gun-related offenses after it approved "shall issue" legislation --
instead of a decrease in personal crimes, and an increase in property
crimes. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean that he or she
is stupid; its much safer to steal something without the risk of
confronting an armed person.
You have also suggested that there are times when one is less likely to
need a weapon, with which I would agree. A private citizen attending a
deck party on a Sunday afternoon probably doesn't need to carry.
However, when you need a weapon, it is too late to go get one. I know
this from personal experience, and can provide you with both statistical
and anectdotal support.
As to the police officer you describe, I don't know the rules of his
department but he may be required to carry in his off duty hours. His
life may also have been threatened by someone he arrested. I don't know
why he would carry his gun openly, but do not feel comfortable with
questioning his need to carry. Personally, I believe that a weapon
should be carried concealed out of consideration for those who might be
made uncomfortable (as an aside, I really like the imagery of your
comment in re "an attack ... on suburbia"). Of course, it is equally
likely that your assessment of the officer as "he just had to act the
tough guy" is correct. Without more information, we don't know.
In sum, Fred, I suspect that you do not have a problem with people who
act responsibly but only with those who do not. Please consider that not
all gun owners are semi-rabid, assault rifle toting ingnoramuses who fire
at the least provocation. The vast majority of gun owners are
responsible individuals who simply want to be able to protect themselves
without having their rights abrogated by the bad acts of the few.
I hope that we can agree to disagree.
Rich
________________________________________________________________
|