Back in July, there was a story about the United States being the most heavily armed nation in the world, based on per capita firearm ownership. It was based on a report which was the work of some transnational organization or other-- an organization that is basically dedicated to stamping out private ownership of small arms. Naturally, bloggers descended on the story like a pack of feral housecats.
Steven Den Beste of USS Clueless handily rips up the assumption that private ownership of guns is necessarily a bad thing, as the Small Arms Survey has so foolishly concluded.
Missing from this calculation is the question of whether the real problem is ownership of guns, or the willingness to use violence against others. Does the presence of guns cause more violence? The total absence of genocidal slaughter in the US, along with the fact that the majority of genocidal slaughter in Rwanda was committed with machetes rather than guns, tends to suggest that violence and gun ownership don't closely correlate, and that it's the violence that kills no matter what weapons it uses.
Mr. Den Beste noted that he doesn't actually own a gun, even though he strongly supports his Constitutional right to do so. That was an opening for Kim du Toit to pick on him a bit.
Now, I'm not of the opinion that everyone should own a gun -- indeed, I can think of several people who should not be allowed to own a gun (but do) -- but it seems to me that an engineer, of all people, should appreciate the fine workings and precision involved in a well-made firearm... in fact, it seems to me downright logical that an engineer would own a gun, for its aesthetic value if for no other reason.
At that point, I was spurred to action, and dashed off a comment to Mr. du Toit. Somewhat to my surprise, he not only printed it, but answered as well.
I was just enjoying a little chuckle over your suggestion that Steven Den Beste, of all people, was being illogical. Then I remembered that I don't own a gun, either. I was raised as a farmer, and not a hunter. No goblin infestation out where I'm from, so we just had a 12-gauge for extermination of varmints, and even that wasn't used often.
I do appreciate the engineering of fine firearms, but... well, the concept of ownership somehow ended up on the back burner. This probably happens to a lot of people, doesn't it?
To which Kim du Toit replied:
Mitch: I recommend a .22 rifle for some fun shooting, and a large-caliber handgun for pest control of the human variety. For starters.
For the confused, "goblin" is a codeword for violent criminals. I still don't live in an area with high crime, so it's still a back-burner issue for me. It shouldn't be. Indeed, I am so remiss in my self-defense planning that I have only fired a gun on one occasion. Twenty rounds of 9 mm through a friend's Glock at a firing range... on August 16th of last year. I remember things like that, but that's another story.
No doubt there is a large population segment that has always considered firearm ownership, and yet not acted on that thought. If you are one of these people, I urge you to purchase a gun at your earliest convenience, lest you forget about it again.
When I blogged on the responsibilities of citizenship on the Fourth of July (and said very little), I fully expected loyal readers to ask me what I was thinking. This did not occur. But I'm bringing you the sequel to that post anyway, even if it isn't by popular demand. I am including the entire article Kim du Toit referenced, because the link for it no longer works.
A man allegedly went to the home of Ray and Annie Friesen in Beaver Valley on Monday and asked to use their phone, saying his car had broken down.Ray Friesen, 79, allowed the man to use a cordless phone outside, but when the suspect returned the phone, he allegedly took out a hunting knife, said Gila County sheriff's detectives.
The man tied Ray Friesen to a chair in the dining room and demanded credit cards, a wallet and keys to a vehicle, authorities said. Friesen gave the man everything he asked for, detectives said.
But the man then entered a room where Annie Friessen was resting. When Ray Friesen heard his wife screaming, he struggled free of his binding and got a pistol, said Sheriff John Armer.
Friesen found his wife bleeding and the suspect standing over her with a knife, Armer said. Friesen shot several times.
Annie Friesen and the suspect, whose name was not immediately released, were both killed.
Why present this at all? If I led you by the hand through the logic of self-defense, you would start to balk early in the process. Whine at the logic, perhaps. You'd stop reading my nice pleasant guided tour, and continue your life with the same bias as before. The solution, then, was to deliver a bombshell. An incident to which the only logical thing an anti-self-defense person can say is, "That was an unusual situation." Well, no. No, it isn't. Every day, the strong prey upon the weak, and they don't need guns to do so. In Britain, a man in a wheelchair successfully drove off a knife-wielding attacker using only a can of Mace. He was then arrested, because Mace is illegal in Britain. That is where this insanity of yours is headed.
I refer to the top article. The thieving, mudering bastard was strong, and therefore didn't need a gun. Lesson: crime will continue in the absence of guns, just as crime was invented long before the personal firearm. The unfortunate elderly gentleman is presumably physically weak, thus he did require a gun to stop the aforementioned murderer. Lesson: gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is a necessary part of their self-defense.
To those who actually think that ever stricter gun laws will reduce gun crime, by reducing the supply of guns, I have one thing to say that you may not have heard before: illegal drugs are, by definition, illegal. Yet they are very easy to acquire in the US today. Many of these are not grown in the US, yet they are successfully smuggled into the country, our vigilant sentries notwithstanding. Demand conquers all barriers in very grand scale. Why should guns be different? Extrapolation: Even if you repeal the 2nd Amendment, confiscate every gun, and put the manufacturers out of business, the criminals will still acquire them. Factories in other countries will gladly turn out guns by the boatload, and buying a handgun on the street will be no harder, really, than buying dope is today.
An old chestnut among gun-rights supporters is that "if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns." This is, of course, a truism. But you want to skirt it-- to eliminate all guns. First, that will never happen (see drug smuggling analogy above). Secondly, though, it would be bad if it did happen. The strong, alone or in gangs, armed with baseball bats or not, would still prey on the weak-- except that the weak will have been deprived of the means with which to fight back. With no credible threat of protective force, it will be open season for criminals. Pepper spray is restricted in some states and localities already. Freaking pepper spray. If you want to make self-defense illegal, can you meet the gaze of a rape victim who might have been saved by as little as a measely can of pepper spray? Can you look her in the eye, and tell her that renouncing weapons was a moral triumph for law-abiding citizens?
If you can... then I will hurt you, physically. You deserve it for being so cold toward an individual, all the while claiming that you want to prevent the suffering of innocents. "What?! You can't do that!" Not legally, no. You can call the police, they'll probably catch me, and I'll probably be punished. But you will still have been beat up. In fact, that's my point. You want everyone to be a good little sheep, despite the eternal presence of wolves. No significant portion of the sheep own guns, or know judo. Your sheep won't carry cans of Mace, for they will be illegal. When the wolves come, will any sheep be able to call the police? When the police come, will they catch any of the wolves? Regardless of those last two answers, punishment of the wolves will be small consolation to the sheep who are dead.
If I have any loyal readers, then they have probably been wondering what happened to me. The answer is that I've been busy moving, and am now saddled with dial-up internet at 26.4 kilobaud. Ah, well. You can't have everything.
I should return to something like a normal blog existence in the future, except that it'll have to wait a bit longer. Family reunion this weekend. You understand, of course.