I went to my first gun show recently--part of my ongoing remedial education in American cultural literacy, which my (American) wife has lately taken in hand--and I have been turning the experience over in my mind these past few days. As a Brit, of course, I was conditioned to expect that the first time I saw an unholstered pistol would be when a mugger stuck one in my face. That is how it works in a civilized country. So for me it was passing strange to see many hundreds of pistols--not to mention shotguns, assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets, laser-sighting attachments and all manner of other lethal weaponry--arrayed for the delectation of ordinary citizens. They let me pick up a gun, for heaven's sake!
A few moments inside the exhibition hall, I was still puzzling over the perfunctory security check at the door--"Are you carrying firearms?" "No, but why would that be a problem?"--when I gaped as a rotund and cheerful old gentleman with a white beard walked past me to the exit, with what looked like an Armalite and attached bayonet slung casually over his shoulder. (I was pleased to see that the trigger was secured by a plastic tie. Dangerous otherwise.) Trade was brisk. The Supreme Court had just overturned DC's de facto prohibition on hand guns, upholding the Second Amendment as an individual rather than collective right.
Though a Brit, as I say, I did not bring the default attitude of many Europeans (or East Coast liberals, same thing) to the event. I am by no means an instinctive gun controller. It is not obvious to me what is wrong with the argument that says, "The criminals already have guns; gun control disarms the rest of us." I don't know how many times I have heard that view sneered at, or laughed at, or pointed to as an infallible marker of stupidity. But I haven't ever heard it seriously confronted, let alone refuted. Thought experiment: would I feel safer walking around DC at night if the district allowed concealed carry, so that some fraction of law-abiding citizens on the street would be armed, or would I feel more at risk? Answer: safer. I don't say this settles the matter: I'm not sure what I think about gun control, and the seeming resistance in some quarters to any and all forms of regulation is ridiculous. But why is this not a legitimate consideration?
I don't think the Democratic nominee would have felt at home with this crowd. I heard several references to Comrade Obama, and saw one button (which I coveted) that said, "I am a BITTER gun-owner." They seemed to me an affable, friendly and very courteous bunch (well, you would be, wouldn't you?). I don't think you could mix with the show's visitors for more than five minutes without thinking it was nonsense to attribute their interest in guns to bitterness or disappointment or some form of social pathology. But of course there is a political dimension. Aside from other motivations--sport, self-defence--the gun-show universe is about pride, self-reliance, and resentment at being bossed around. Distinctively American traits, wouldn't you say? Best in moderation, no doubt--but still, where would the country be without those attitudes? I may get thrown out of Georgetown for this, but I say, good for them.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Purely for the continuation of your education in American culture let me explain that I'm a left-leaning Dem (was Independent leftish until the Clinton impeachment), VNam vet, southerner and gun owner. I've always thought that the anti-gun position that became associated with the Dem party was a stupid idea. Stupid partly on it's merits and blitheringly insane from the point of view of winning elections.
I agree with you completely that the world is a safer place when responsible mature people are allowed to go armed. A bumper sticker my sister used to have says it all: An armed society is a POLITE society.
Now, lets take this argument a step further and talk about a mature responsible person's right to take the drugs they prefer....
As for gun-control: The reason that gun control laws don't work is that they require the cooperation of a very unlikely source, and that is the criminal.
Glad to hear you made it out to a gun show, and I agree with "A. Ruralresident" that gun control just won't work because it would require criminals to obey the law.
And yes, there are pro-gun democrats (such as myself and several people I know)
Nice post. We need more like this. I am a liberal Dem who lives in DC. I am also a long gun owner and strong believer in the 2nd Amendment.
I'm still voting for Obama, but I really think the Democratic leadership is out of touch with their constituency on this issue. It is amazing the number of like-minded Dems i've come across over the past year.
My theory is that the rank and file dems support the right to bear arms, but it is the "latte liberal" base that contributes the money.
Best,
Luger Liberal
And isn't it nice to know that since you were at a gun show, no one would have minded if you had been a convicted criminal (or mental patient). They would have sold you whatever you wanted, no questions asked.
But then perhaps that's the way it should be. Perhaps the only reasonable thing to do is to shut down what gun control mechanisms we have (they don't keep the criminal or the insane from being armed anyway) and put the funds used administering those mechanisms to better use.
Me, I'm about to have my first child, a black male child, and if things continue to go well I'll be in a position to retire by the time he reaches his teens. I think we'll raise him in a less violent country after that.
Thank you for approaching the issue as an objective observer. I am a firm supporter of our 2nd amendment rights - for all the reasons you mentioned, plus the fact that an armed populace should be the primary (and is the original) check-and-balance on the government.
Point is, there has been for far too long a dearth of objectivity in this debate - on both sides. Kudos to you.
Now that you have visited a gun show, it is time to take the next step and take a gun course and learn to shoot. After all guns are tools and seeing tools is one thing and learning to use tools is another.
Fantastic write up; completely objective. It seems the most of the gun-control crowd tends to suffer from a sweeping ignorance, Like davido supplied with his comment, about guns and Gun-shows. (BTW, someone who is licensed to sell firearms still must do the background check, even at a Gunshow. It is the private sellers who are not required to. Should anyone actually attend a gun-show, you'll realize that many sellers are very reserved about who they sell to. Often they will not sell a weapon to someone who is plainly intoxicated of afflicted in some way) Gun-related crime has only a fractional percentage from gun-shows. Most guns used in a commission of a crime comes from illegal sales at crooked shops, or, straw purchases. If these laws were enforced and convictions were set, that would cut down crime far more than regulation of private sales.
Anyhow, Kudos for educating yourself on a hot topic ATM. I think you'll find that they more education you receive, the more you'll be all about guns.
BTW, someone who is licensed to sell firearms still must do the background check, even at a Gunshow. It is the private sellers who are not required to.
Why aren't private sellers licensed? BTW, I've never been exercised by the gun control debate one way or the other. I'm just curious.
"Why aren't private sellers licensed? BTW, I've never been exercised by the gun control debate one way or the other. I'm just curious."
The same reason you dont have to have a car dealer license to sell your private vehicle.
You only have to have the license if you are in the business of buying and selling guns. Now I do admit that there are some "private sales" by some individuals who seem to do it every weekend, but thats another story.
Private idividuals are not allowed to put someones name through the NICS ( Instant check system) before they sale a weapon. Only licensed dealers are allowed to do this.
If they allowed private sellers to have this option, many would do so.
Your postcard was so reasonable that I forgive you for being a Brit. Very generous of me, isn't it?
Now that you've been to a gun show, I invite you to go to a gun-free zone, a local public school in Washington, DC. Compare and contrast the manners you see there with those of the gun show patrons. If you want to dig deeper in this issue, you might ask yourself why there are school shootings when guns are stridently banned there but no shootings at gun shows where guns are embraced in abundance.
Gun shows are like flea markets or rummage sales. It's as much a social phenomenon as a business venture. Rest assured, the organizers are making money off the trading that goes on, just like with any other business venture.
Clive, I complement you on your post. It's gratifying to read a thoughtful essay on what's NOT wrong with gun shows finally.
If you think the folks you met at that show are comfortable to be around, look for a local shooting club or rifle range where sanctioned NRA high power competitions are held. You probably won't have to look to far afield, even in California or New York. You won't find a friendlier bunch of folks either, as long as you refrain from trying to ask questions of the participants about what's going on when they're actively competing.
Oh, one thing: you may have seen true "assault rifles" at that show, but chances are good they were semi-auto versions rather than the real deal. Class 3 is how true, full-auto firearms are classified here, and in some states they are perfectly legal to own as long as you pay the $200 tax to make it legal. They're considerably more costly than the look-alike semi-auto versions, often 5 to 10 times as costly, so they're not too common at most public gun shows. It's a picky point I know, but the media bias towards labeling any semi-auto as a "assault rifle" is misleading in the extreme. Get the facts straight and you'll get more respect from folks who know the difference.
Gun shows aren't the problem. Unregulated gun show sales are. An unlicensed seller of an AK-47 and an SKS at a gun show in northern Kentucky recently said to a reporter on hidden camera: "No background check, no paperwork. You see a gun here you like, pay me for it and take it with you."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq2faC-u87g
An AK sold with no questions asked. This is legal today at gun shows, but is it right? Not if you want to keep criminals from getting guns, either directly from gun shows, or from the gun traffickers who act as their middlemen.
Consider that thousands of guns are sold this way across the country, in about 5,000 shows per year. Just this week, a former licensed gun dealer in Nebraska was fined $60,000 and sentenced to 5 years' probation for selling over 1,500 guns without a license at 228 gun shows. Federal law didn't require him to run a criminal background check on anybody he sold to. Federal law is so weak that he had to sell upwards of $1 million dollars worth of guns before a prosecutor could make a case that he "engaged in the business" of selling firearms without a license.
http://www.ashland-gazette.com/site/tab3.cfm?
newsid=19864846&BRD=2712&PAG=461&dept_id=559850&rfi=6
It's also instructive that Mr. Crook encountered "perfunctory security" at the show he visited. Who knows how many straw purchasers, gun traffickers, and criminals walked down the aisles that day? Perhaps ATF should have been there in force, but since their ranks have been weakened along with their enforcement power over the past 8 years, it isn't surprising Mr. Crook apparently saw none.
As for the statement that "The criminals already have guns; gun control disarms the rest of us," it's a tired bumper sticker slogan that has been refuted time and again. In fact, the Supreme Court refuted it themselves by ordering that total gun bans are off the table, even as they ratified almost every gun control measure currently on the books.
Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense in the home, but criminal background checks, bans on guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill, bans on guns from schools and government buildings, bans on dangerous and unusual weapons - these are all presumptively constitutional. A June CNN poll says almost 80% of the country supports gun registration, even as they support an individual right to own a gun – clearly they don’t believe gun control leads to only criminals getting guns because it’s simply not true.
"An armed society is a polite society?" 100,000 shot and killed or wounded in the U.S. last year. How polite is that?
Finally, Mr. Crook says Sen. Obama might feel uncomfortable at a gun show, but Sen. McCain introduced his own bill to close the gun show loophole and campaigned for state initiatives in CO and OR to do it, once voted for an assault weapons ban, voted against the Tiahrt crime gun trace restrictions, voted against the 24-hour background check record destruction rule, and voted against weakening ATF enforcement power.
Sen. McCain might feel out of place at a gun show, himself.
Clive, please feel free to contact me should you visit Yorktown, Virginia where I live. My close friends and I would truly enjoy inviting you to our private gun range where you could shoot all sorts of wonderful devices.
Just so you are not shocked - many close friends of mine take advantage of "open carry." In most states in America it is perfectly legal to walk around in public with a firearm visible on your hip - no permit required. It is a wonderful example of the freedom we hold dear.
Respectfully,
Chet Szymecki
Yorktown, VA
http://www.opencarry.org
I would be freaked out of my mind thinking about people carrying concealed weapons on the streets of DC when I'm walking at night.
People make mistakes. They kill accidently. And in the course of protecting one person, another makes a dreadful mistake.
Locking down ALL guns and closing the gun show loophole is sane. No one needs an AK-47 or dangerous handguns and locking down the market would make it harder and more expensive to obtain illegally - naturally curbing the incidence of gun violence in urban areas.
We need more cops on the street in DC, not guns concealed. Cops would make me feel safer, personally.
"An armed society is a POLITE society."
Hmm. This explains why Iraqis are so polite.
Does anyone else find this statement to be completely disturbing?
Sorry, but I do not want to live in a society where being polite is driven by a fear of being murdered with a gun.
As with many politicized issues, the average citizen would probably be most satisfied with a "middle-of-the-road" approach (right to carry a concealed handgun after a background check; no right to carry assault rifles or armor-piercing bullets). But both sides have polarized the issue to the point where the only choices offered are "no gun at all" or "whatever guns you want". Sigh...
I 100% agree with 'Luger Liberal'. I don't really think a proliferation of handguns will affect crime rates. The proliferation of security cams is doing 10x that. But I think it works both ways. If you have a handgun, its very unlikely its actually going to be used to stop a crime against you. But its also very unlikely it will be used in a crime against me. As long as I stay away from high crime areas and don't bang your wife, I'm pretty much safe. You may not be. And your wife may not be. But I am. Given that there are many other issues that the Democrats need to address that have much more impact, I'd rather keep the danger from guns manageable through the background checks and no fully automatic weapons that JK alluded to.
I'm a gun owner who believes a certain amount of gun control. I certainly don't want every man and his dog walking round the streets with a gun, if anything does happen judging from what I've seen on American reality TV, everyone will open fire fairly indiscriminately. I certainly wouldn't feel safer if people walking round with concealed weapons. There is not a great deal of peer reviewed scientific research on gun ownership and control. What there is suggests that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, though not by a great deal necessarily, and not for every type of crime. Proper research is very rarely quoted by either side in this debate.
Here's an observation, although I know it will be quickly discounted by the "gun rights" supporters out there in the ether.
I am a native of Boston, I lived in NYC for many years, and I now live in DC. I am a big city guy. I have no particular problem with folks owning guns and using them outside of dense urban areas for the purpose of hunting or recreation. But as an urban resident, I find the easy availability of guns to be more than disturbing.
Now, you present the argument that the criminals already have guns, so perhaps law abiding citizens such as myself or others should also arm ourselves in order to feel safer. Fine. I agree that the gun ban in DC was largely ineffective at preventing criminals from owning the weapons illegally, and thus the argument has some surface appeal. But it's flawed. It is precisely forums such as the one about which you write--unregulated gun shows in Virginia where virtually anyone can easily buy lethal firearms--that make it so easy for criminals to have guns. Basically, the free flow of weaponry out of states that permit these sorts of gatherings provides a great source for out-of-state criminals. Prices stay low, and there are more guns on the street in the big cities. Their gun bans are ineffective because Virginia essentially exports it's own *lack* of regulation up the east coast. That is what offends me. Virginians should be able to regulate or not regulate guns however they choose, but they should figure out a way to prevent their preferences from spilling across the border.
Gun ownership is the touchstone for a self-regulating society, which is the only type of true SOCIETY. Gun ownership doesn't work in societies that don't work. Guns=sovereignty.
Matt
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
--Ted Nugent
And to those who would feel safer with more police on the streets (rather than armed citizens) let me remind you that the Supreme Court has ruled (on numerous occasions) that "the police have no responsibility to protect citizens." They are simply an "auxilliary deterrent" to crime and basically are there to clean up after it's all over. For the female poster(s) above, I strongly reccommend you read the book "Dial 911 and Die".
I believe your perspective will likely change.
"Gun shows aren't the problem. Unregulated gun show sales are. An unlicensed seller of an AK-47 and an SKS at a gun show in northern Kentucky recently said to a reporter on hidden camera: "No background check, no paperwork. You see a gun here you like, pay me for it and take it with you."
You may not know this, but this is legal pretty much anywhere in MOST states, not just at "gun shows." The private sales that occur at gun shows can occur in exactly the same manner pretty much anywhere else. I can sell one of my guns to my neighbor, face-to-face in my driveway without a background check or paperwork.
Clive - glad to see you got a taste of true american gun culture. It's far different than what anti-gun folks would have you believe.
As a conservative, I will admit to one thing: guns do encourage their owner to use them. For instance, if one were to be confronted by muggers, the wiser course would be to back away while ownership of a gun would probably encourage you to confront and maybe even shoot the muggers. However, if you apply the same logic, then why pump iron? Why learn martial arts or self-defense? True, it will get you involved in more fights than if you were a namby pamby, but at least you'll have the knowledge to defend yourself.
I don't own a gun; aside from living in NYC (a non gun-friendly state), I am afraid of what it would encourage me to do in a confrontation or in a moment of anger. Proper training both psychological and physical should be mandatory for all gun owners. That said, I'd absolutely trust myself with a gun a whole lot more than I would trust the restraint of a thug with a weapon. Note the incident today on the Canadian bus where the lunatic repeatedly stabbed his seatmate to death and beheaded him. Any passenger with a gun could have shot him to death.
That "armor-piercing round" business sounds like another press-fueled inaccuracy.
Most policemen wear vests rated to stop one or two pistol rounds.
Most rifles can puncture police-standard vests. Especially rifles chambered for game the size of a white-tailed deer. If you have a civilian-legal AK-47 (Or an M-1 carbine used in WWII, or Grandpa's old Marlin .30 deer rifle), you have a rifle that can pierce most police vests with standard ammunition.
The military has higher-rated armor, which can stop some rifle rounds at certain ranges. However, it is often considered too cumbersome for police work, or unnecessary due to the low number of crimes committed with rifles.
There are special armor-piercing rounds which can only be sold to police/military agencies. But those would likely not have been at the gun-show.
""Why aren't private sellers licensed? BTW, I've never been exercised by the gun control debate one way or the other. I'm just curious.""
A private seller isn't licensed because they aren't in the business of selling guns. Only people who actually engage in the business of selling guns are licensed . . . what this means is, yes I can sell my WASR (a legal semi auto copy of an AK-47 - no one is buying AK-47s at gun shows without dropping $25,000 or more and undergoing substantial background checks and registrations by ATF and local police - its another lie spread by lying bigots like Doug Pennington above) to my neighbor in my driveway no questions asked or even at a gun show . . .but I can't do it if my motive is profit. Personally, the only time I have sold guns (or traded them) was in order to get other guns which I wanted for my collection more.
Now, if I were to sell more than a couple of guns a year - indeed, were I to actually purchaser a table at a gun show and sell guns, the ATF and most gun show operators would presume I was in it for profit - and therefore needed a license - UNLESS I could show otherwise.
Oh, and one other thing that bigots like Doug Pennington and the folks at the Brady Bunch don't want you to know (but which you probably noticed real quickly Clive) a large (dare I say 50%) of tables at gun shows aren't selling guns. Instead they sell holsters, or distribute political material, or paintings, or junk (lots and lots of junk) or ammo or food (deer jerky!!!!) or are selling lessons/training or vacations. What the lying gun bigots like Doug Pennington and the folks at the Brady Bunch don't tell you is that when they calculate their statistics on "unlicensed" sellers at gun shows. . . . THEY INCLUDE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T SELLING FIREARMS. Cause otherwise you'd have something like 98+% of sales at gun shows actually coming from FFL holders with just a minor minor fraction coming from a private citizen who simply wants to sell one gun so he afford another.
And think about it, a gun show is loaded with cops (both on duty and off duty) and a much higher percentage of people than normal who have willingly submitted and passed extensive background checks (every time you buy a gun they run it, its even more so if you have a concealed handgun permit). . . is that really the place a gang banger is going to go and buy guns from???
You very probably did NOT see armor piercing bullets at that show. AP bullets are law enforcement and military only, and have been tightly controlled for a long time. If you did see any, they were either (A) so old as to be unreliable, or (B) deliberately mislabeled as a marketing gimmick.
The DC crime problem has not arisen because gun control has failed, it has arisen because criminal control has failed:
Go to the Washingtonian Magazine web site, and search for the article titled "Why DC's Bad Guys Have So Many Guns".
Very good article! Thank you, master!
guns RULE!
I am happy that you enjoyed the gun show, Clive. The reason for the question at the door is if you are carrying they want the gun in "safe" mode. Unloaded and open, often with a plastic tie keeping the gun open.
Many people will bring a weapon they may want to sell or trade with to a gun show since there are many others there that they can sell to.
As others before me have said the dealers are those who sell in greater quantity. Most privately sold guns at gun shows are long arms or antiques.
Mr. Pennington is insulting when he equates the attendees as criminals or straw purchasers. Guns are not cheap and very little guns bought at guns shows are used in crimes. Most criminals steal their guns.
There are different rules for long arms and pistols. A dealer cannot sell directly to you a pistol if you are not a resident. It has to deliver to a dealer in your state. DC has no dealers so no sales to DC residents.
Rhoda said:
"I would be freaked out of my mind thinking about people carrying concealed weapons on the streets of DC when I'm walking at night"
Uhm ... people already ARE carrying concealed weapons around on the street in DC when you're walking at night. You are surrounded by street criminals carrying concealed firearms. THEY are the ones who you are in danger from.
Why should I even have to point out to you that banning lawful citizens from owning firearms CLEARLY has not enhanced your safety there?
"I will admit to one thing: guns do encourage their owner to use them. For instance, if one were to be confronted by muggers, the wiser course would be to back away while ownership of a gun would probably encourage you to confront and maybe even shoot the muggers."
I can't speak for all gun owners, but carrying my pistol and several years of martial arts training lead me in a different direction. I am now far more likely to avoid problem areas in my city than I was before carrying. Faced with a mugging, I'd give up my wallet rather than take someone's life. Only if I thought the mugging wasn't going to end with my wallet would I take any offensive action. I carry my pistol 99% of the time and pray I never have to use it accept at the range.
"Proper training both psychological and physical should be mandatory for all gun owners."
I mostly agree with this although not 'mandatory' as in compulsory by law. Kids going to school used to have the opportunity to shoot rifles and even compete on rifle teams. My grandfather told me that it wasn't uncommon for kids to store their rifles and shotguns in the cloak room at school so they could do a little hunting on the way home. I can't imagine the ruckus that would erupt at the local middle school if someone proposed putting guns in the hands of kids and teaching them how to handle them safely.
Of course we don't teach kids to be self reliant. To be the man or woman who takes action when it is needed. We teach them that they are incapable or incompetent at taking care of themselves and providing for their basic needs. You can't do it, call an expert and do what they tell you to do. Until the expert arrives, just hide and wait. Take no action; you might hurt yourself or even worse, fail.
One comment--even if you only have a handgun for home protection and/or the firing range, I encourage EVERYONE to apply for a concealed carry permit (if allowed) in their state for your own legal protection.
Say you are on the way to the range and have your gun visible on the seat next to you. You get hot and throw your jacket over the gun. It is now concealed. If the wrong cop pulls you over on a traffic violation you can be in trouble. Another example-you stop for gas in an unfriendly area and don't feel like letting the loiterers see the gun so you put it under the front seat. It is now concealed.
Unfortunately, I live in DC so I don't have that option.
BTW-if interested in how I became a "Luger Liberal" visit http://flacku.blogspot.com
Colin,
Forget about being "quickly discounted"--how does quickly refuted sound to you?
For just a few points...
1. On what basis can you argue that rural people have the moral and legal right to defend themselves, but that urban dwellers should just consider themselves cannon fodder if the police can't prevent crime from happening to them? You're close to making the Cities Are Evil argument, which I find surprising in someone who is not just a city dweller, but apparently a willing one.
2. How is it that those same unregulated firearms cause so much less harm in places like Arlington or Alexandria, where are part of the exact same metroplex as DC?
3. Who said anything about "feeling" safer? Having the option to protect oneself with a handgun can actually make you be safer, in the sense of giving you more options to deal with life-threatening situations.
Kirk, your #2 question is the 800 lb elephant in the middle of the room that nobody wants to talk about.
Kirk,
Regarding question #2 - how many slums do you see in Alexandria or Arlington? How many low income areas are there? For those outside of the DC area, these are two very nice suburbs across the river from DC. The average home price and income level in these areas are very, very high. Now, compare these areas to the eastern half of DC. The comparison is ridiculous. If you want a more accurate comparison, pick something closer to DC in socioeconomic status, like say PG County in MD.
Given that killing is a sin, and guns are specifically designed to kill (and ruthlessly efficient and effective at doing it), how can I see them as anything but an instrument of evil? I just hope that many of you, with your vigilante fantasies, don't hurt someone by accident. I wish some of you would step outside of your own informational echo chambers and take a sober look at the costs of our gun culture. Perhaps do a bit a traveling abroad. I hope that you will see what we lose as a nation for your precious chunks of metal.
Now Christian is claiming that poor people are criminals. There are a lot of poor people in various areas in the country that do not resort to crime to make money. The problem is the criminal culture and the glorification of that culture like in rap music. Any culture that glorifies crime and that can be the criminal’s parents as well, is the problem.
Well I think the decent folk whether poor, middle class, or wealthy should have the ability to defend themselves.
Since the poor is more preyed upon than the wealthy it is more important that the urban poor can defend themselves.
Or do you believe that black urban poor should not be able to defend themselves, Christian?
RAH,
You're absolutely right. We should flood the country with weapons. Every person should have one with them at all times. Then, we will live in a utopia. Then, maybe we can be as peaceful as Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia.
As for claiming that poor people are criminals, you made that leap, not me. But, anyone who has been to the DC area knows that the northeast and southeast sides of the city are notoriously rough. Comparing them to Arlington or Alexandria is just silly.
I do believe that the black urban poor, as you say, deserve the right to live in a society free of the gun culture that you glorify and the violence that follows it.
I'm a former Law Enforcement Trainer, now working in the private sector as a security consultant. I work armed by choice. I have trained hundreds of civilians and cops to shoot well, and I fully support Armed Citizens and Concealed Carry. Why? Because regardless of what your local police chief (politician) tells you, the police not only can't protect you, they have no obligation to. Cops write reports and clean up messes, they don't stop much of anything from happening. Cops can't be everywhere.......citizens ALREADY ARE. Given that the good guys outnumber the bad guys about 20 to 1, if everyone is armed, the bad guys don't stand a chance, and they know it. Criminals are gutless cowards, who prey on the weak and elderly and anyone they appear to have an advantage over. A concealed handgun turned my 79-year old, 95-pound mother into a force to be reckoned with when a convicted rapist broke into her apartment. He left in a body bag. But according to the Brady Bunch, he was a helpless victim, brutally slain with a handgun. Their stats are so skewed as to be totally irrelevant.
Learning to shoot is only a small part of handgun ownership. Tactics, legal issues, and Lethal Force guidelines are also taught in most classes. Personally, if I can extricate myself from a situation without having to shoot, I won. Sheeple fear guns because they don't understand the mindset required to wield one properly. And by the way, the timid are not qualified to comment on the attitudes and actions of the brave!
I'm a former Law Enforcement Trainer, now working in the private sector as a security consultant. I work armed by choice. I have trained hundreds of civilians and cops to shoot well, and I fully support Armed Citizens and Concealed Carry. Why? Because regardless of what your local police chief (politician) tells you, the police not only can't protect you, they have no obligation to. Cops write reports and clean up messes, they don't stop much of anything from happening. Cops can't be everywhere.......citizens ALREADY ARE. Given that the good guys outnumber the bad guys about 20 to 1, if everyone is armed, the bad guys don't stand a chance, and they know it. Criminals are gutless cowards, who prey on the weak and elderly and anyone they appear to have an advantage over. A concealed handgun turned my 79-year old, 95-pound mother into a force to be reckoned with when a convicted rapist broke into her apartment. He left in a body bag. But according to the Brady Bunch, he was a helpless victim, brutally slain with a handgun. Their stats are so skewed as to be totally irrelevant.
Learning to shoot is only a small part of handgun ownership. Tactics, legal issues, and Lethal Force guidelines are also taught in most classes. Personally, if I can extricate myself from a situation without having to shoot, I won. Sheeple fear guns because they don't understand the mindset required to wield one properly. And by the way, the timid are not qualified to comment on the attitudes and actions of the brave!
Wow, is it really necessary to bring up another country like Iraq when your arguments fall apart? If you think the problems in Iraq have to do with people carrying firearms, there's no use arguing with you Christian. Use some logic for a change, or do you also believe in "assault weapon" IED's? Or that carrying concealed to defend yoursel means picking up an RPG launcher like they have in Iraq? Is it really that extreme for you?
Sarcasm too? Yeah, I REALLY believe you make sense.
Going back to the whole AP issue, chances are if they were sold at the gun show, they'd be for rifles. AP for handguns are illegal for sale to civilians, and the ATF monitors guns shows as we all know; whether they're effective or not is a different story, but they would seize the handgun AP right away as well as arrest the sellor.
Either way, a powerful enough handgun round at close range can be armor-piercing anyway, depending on the level of the body armor. AP doesn't give you that much of an advantage, it's just another tool that sometimes is appropriate and other times not effective.
CCW is a responsibility. A law-abiding person who choose to carry concealed is choosing to be more responsible, with the understanding that although they may not WANT to pull out their gun, they may NEED to. Do I want to confront the mugger who may or may not kill me? No, but because I don't know what they may do to me or anyone else I'm with, I NEED to.
Clive, thank you for the article.
Liberal Luger - Your vote for Obama will be a vote to END your enjoyment of your Second Amendment rights. And if your candidate doesn't approve of one part of the Constitution, what other individual rights does he think you shouldn't enjoy? Your mindless vote for a man who doesn't really believe in YOU and your Constituitional rights doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe you should reconsider your own reasoning.
Military "AP" ammo is designed to pierce thick metel such as light armoured vehicles and aircraft. It's also usually tracer or incediary as well in order to do maximum damage inside said vehicle. Most standard rifle ammo will penetrate civilian law enforcement vests and modern cars; just watch the video from the famous North Hollywood bank robbery.
The premise that violence follows the gun culture as Christian claims is false. Hunters, target shooters are generally friendly and do not commit crime. The gun culture is not criminal. I would like to hear his numbers for the amount of crime at ranges or at gun shows.
Violence follows crime. Most crimes are the result of the illegal drugs and the profits made by them. If the guy who had the nice clothes and car had purchased all that with drug money, it is not uncommon that that he is a role model and the gun is just to protect his turf.
Guns are just the tool used by both criminals and law abiding. The gun has no evil nature that makes people commit crimes. That is the criminal culture that thinks crime is ok.
There is no reason why the decent folks who live in SE should not have the ability to defend themselves against the gangs and criminals. Originally gun control had racist’s roots. To prevent or advocate that the poor blacks should not the equal right to own guns for legitimate purposes is discriminatory.
There is no right to live in a violence free society. There are cultures that have less violence and those cultures have different values than the criminal culture. That is why Arlington and Alexandria have less crime. Plus the police lock up criminals. Virginians may have the ability to carry openly or concealed but most do not use that ability. However home invasions in Virginia are much lower because there is a good chance there is a gun in the home. Same is true in Maryland. Same should be true in DC.
If you sell guns for profit as opposed to trading as a collector the BATFE, FBI, and local law enforcement will notice and you will be in violation of Federal law for dealing in firearms without a license. That means you get to go to Federal Prison for free.
The gun show crowds are full of law enforcement, including loads of BATFE agents. The loophole the blind think they see of buying at a gun show isn't really much at all of a loophole.
Criminals don't much buy guns at gun shows because most all sales are transacted by licensed dealers and the shows are full of law enforcement, which aren't people criminals tend to want to hang around with socially. People walking around gun shows with a gun for sale as a non-licensed dealer are leading a parade of LEOs behind them, even if they are unaware of it. The LEOs notice them.
Gun controllers might keep in mind that the first shots of the Revolution were fired over an attempt by the British to disarm the American populace. That was what triggered all out war rather than the dumping tea in the harbor.
About 15 million law-abiding Americans registered for hunting licenses last year alone. Many Americans own firearms but don't hunt. Think about it for a while. We scare the ever living hell out of criminals and legislators with fascist tendencies as well as foreign invaders.
USA gun owners outnumber the 5 largest modern armies in the world combined and can buy the same gear they can for the most part. Rather a few are ex-military, and many of us reflect on Lexington Green and smile, as opposed to wishing the Colonies had had better gun control legislation.
May we eternally scare anyone wishing to usurp our freedoms.
Might give some an understanding of why some whiny fascists act so gun fearing.
The Australians didn't boot the Brits. The Indians and Pakistanis sort of did, but it wasn't much organized or done well. Canada didn't boot them out. The Irish haven't even managed to do so yet. Law-abiding peacefully inclined American common citizens did because they did not allow themselves to be disarmed.
I'm gonna bring the elephant up again. He's feeling a little left out.
The left-wing liberal, white, politicians exploit the black, hispanic, and other minority communities to further their own goals.
Every time there is a shooting in a poor, urban, minority neighborhood, they blame it on the guns. It wasn't poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, unemployment, under-education, gang violence, a rap culture that glorifies illegal activities that killed their little sister/brother/cousin/etc. It was the 20 round magazine, the pistol grip, the threaded barrel, the barrel shroud, the "killer dum dum cop killer" bullets that did it.
And they're so quick to put the video of the stereotypical old black lady in her bathrobe crying outside of her run down apartment on the 6 o' clock news for everyone to feel sorry for. It's exploitation at its worst.
The truth is, the gun control supporters don't want to face the music. They don't want to deal with the real problems of crime. Our waning criminal justice system. The fact that here in NJ someone can murder a cop - and maybe a prison inmate or two as well while he's serving his sentence - and not have to face the death penalty. Because it's hard to solve the moral problems, the unemployment, poverty, drugs, etc that lead to crime.
They seek to distract you from the real problems they know that they cannot deal with, because it's easy to show a picture of that weeping black woman and some scary soviet rifle from the 40's on the evening news.
I'm gonna bring the elephant up again. He's feeling a little left out.
The left-wing liberal, white, politicians exploit the black, hispanic, and other minority communities to further their own goals.
Every time there is a shooting in a poor, urban, minority neighborhood, they blame it on the guns. It wasn't poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, unemployment, under-education, gang violence, a rap culture that glorifies illegal activities that killed their little sister/brother/cousin/etc. It was the 20 round magazine, the pistol grip, the threaded barrel, the barrel shroud, the "killer dum dum cop killer" bullets that did it.
And they're so quick to put the video of the stereotypical old black lady in her bathrobe crying outside of her run down apartment on the 6 o' clock news for everyone to feel sorry for. It's exploitation at its worst.
The truth is, the gun control supporters don't want to face the music. They don't want to deal with the real problems of crime. Our waning criminal justice system. The fact that here in NJ someone can murder a cop - and maybe a prison inmate or two as well while he's serving his sentence - and not have to face the death penalty. Because it's hard to solve the moral problems, the unemployment, poverty, drugs, etc that lead to crime.
They seek to distract you from the real problems they know that they cannot deal with, because it's easy to show a picture of that weeping black woman and some scary soviet rifle from the 40's on the evening news.
Clive Crook wrote: "As a Brit, of course, I was conditioned to expect that the first time I saw an unholstered pistol would be when a mugger stuck one in my face. That is how it works in a civilized country."
I disagree. If you're going to have such high standards for what it means to be civilized then I assert that in a civilized country you don't get confronted by muggers merely by walking down dark, lonely streets. In a civilized country you don't have your house broken into merely because you aren't home (all the more so if you _are_ home). So let's recognize that none of our countries are truly civilized, and let's acquire the arms we need to emerge victorious when fighting those elements of our society which _aren't_ civilized.
And no, it is not because the criminals have guns that we need them. Even if a trio of muggers had only knives, arrows or clubs, a lone middle-aged victim would still need a gun to defeat them.
We've been told that police cannot keep our streets free of muggers nor our houses free of burglars until the root causes of crime have been eliminated. Well then, until those root causes have been utterly eliminated we'd be fools to leave the problem entirely in the hands of a police force incapable of doing the job.
Excellent post by I. LikeFreedom. Thank you!
Another very typical and very dishonest tactic employed by "guns are the devil" crowd, and also apparently standard policy for the dinosaur media, is to overly sensationalize every incident in which a gun is used in the commission of a crime but NEVER, EVER, EVER publish the countless stories in which guns are used to save lives and or PREVENT crime and death.
And to the frightened and tunnel-visioned lambs who believe that guns are "Baa-aa-aad" and have only one purpose, ["to kill"]; you are either very naive or simply have not fully thought your comments through before publically bleating out the tired old gun-grabbers' mantra.
Unless the thought utterly terrifies you, why not go to a shooting range and actually fire a gun for yourself before making a stand one way or the other? (Many ranges have a few different rental guns so you can try a variety of styles and calibers.) There's way more to guns than killing.
NRA member for life. I was pleased with your thoughts in this article, but I do want to make one more thing clear that was not mentioned by the comments from other people.
You CAN NOT purchase "armor piercing" bullets at a gun show!! They are only sold to law enforcement & military through special channels. It is a felony to possess or manufature them!
Clive, thanks for a great column! Thanks also to all the firearms owners who commented. Although the Supreme Court recently affirmed the 2nd Amendment, 4 justices voted to nullify our God given right to self protection. As someone commented to Liberal Lugar, which of the other 10 amendments will a President Barack Obama coupled with a Democrat House and Senate be willing to take from us? To those of you who don't like firearms, that's OK, but just because you are willing to be led the slaughter, don't expect me or mine to go with you. Those of us who believe in the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution must uphold ALL of the 10 Amendments, not just the ones we like.
ANOTHER EXCELLENT POST BY "I LIKE FREEDOM" HE REALLY TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. THE LIBERAL OBAMA LOVING MEDIA ARE BUFFOONS, ALONG WITH MOST DEMOCRATS.
All elected officials take a "OATH" of office. Part of that oath , is to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Just what is it about that , that they don't understand ? Kind of a No-Brainer don't you think.
Davido,
We will miss you.
Swoop
Rhoda,
I guess the criminals walking around with guns don't freak you out? Aren't THEY the ones that hurt people? Let's be real.
Swoop
A thought for all of you sheep out there - When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I love it when I hear a lib say - no one needs an AK-47. Well you don't need a Porsche. This is America. You can have whatever you want. I'll follow the law with my AK-47. You follow the law with your Porsche. We'll get along just fine.
Swoop
A1 wrote: "I don't own a gun; aside from living in NYC (a non gun-friendly state), I am afraid of what it would encourage me to do in a confrontation or in a moment of anger. Proper training both psychological and physical should be mandatory for all gun owners. That said, I'd absolutely trust myself with a gun a whole lot more than I would trust the restraint of a thug with a weapon."
I have read this explanation for some people eschewing firearms ownership many times.
I think that rational people ought to find it chilling that there are people out there who actually trust themselves so little, and who consider themselves so at risk of going berserk, that those people themselves say, "I'd better not get myself a gun--who knows how crazy I'd go if I had a gun!"
A1, aren't you saying that you yourself are not in control of yourself, and are not in control of whether you would get angry and use a gun to commit a violent crime? Do you really believe that all that might stand between you and being a murderer is the fact that you have not availed yourself of a firearm? What about kitchen knives? Do you make sure to keep none in your home?
I abhor the ridiculous projection in use by people like A1, who seem to stand at least mildly opposed to gun rights for the general populace, because they impute the same lack of self control from which they suffer onto the rest of us. I simply am not as subject to psychotic whimsy as you are, A1, and so I trust myself implicitly with my many guns.
Christian:
Congratulations Christian, you've finally come to the realization that cultural and socio-economic factors are what drives crime, not access to firearms. You are precisely correct—the reason that the surrounding areas, with access to legal firearms, are not as crime-ridden as the poverty-stricken areas within which firearms are illegal is because of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms whatsoever.
Thus, enacting gun control laws which largely impact the law-abiding, legal gun owners who are not the ones committing crimes, will do absolutely nothing to address the issues that actually drive crime. I'm glad you agree with us on that central issue.
I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in the sort of sin that you're talking about. However, it seems to me that there is all sorts of biblically-sanctioned killing. How do you pick and choose as to which killing is OK and which isn't?
Are you saying that when a police officer kills someone in the line of duty, either in defense of a citizen or defense of themselves, that they are sinners? So you would do away with police? If they are not committing a sin when they kill out of necessity, then why is a private citizen committing a sin when they kill in defense of themselves or their family?
No they're not—they are specifically designed to propel a bullet at high rates of speed, accurately. They can be used for protective violence as well as predatory violence. They can be used as a means of sustenance (yes, hunting is killing, but do you eat meat? I don't, I'm vegan.) They can also be used, as millions worldwide do, for target shooting, in which nobody or anything is killed (Target shooting is the national sport of Switzerland, as well as an Olympic sport. It's got nothing to do with death). The fact that there are 60+ million gun owners in this country that will never kill anyone or anything with their firearm makes it clear that your statement that guns are ONLY for killing is completely nonsensical.
Thanks, but why would you assume that we haven't already done so? Oh, right, I forgot—because gun owners are all inbred rural rednecks who don't travel farther than their local Wal-Mart.
Well, I'm a big-city dwelling blue state liberal who happens to think the 2nd Amendment is as important as the 1st Amendment. I've been all over this country from coast to coast, as well as Puerto Rico, Canada, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Croatia, Italy, Belgium, England and Brazil.
And having been to all those countries, I still don't agree with you and think you have no idea what you're talking about.
I want a nuclear weapon.
Congress has no right to restrict my freedom to bear arms. The more weapons we have, the safer we are. I want mine to be nuclear, I want to make sure mine is bigger than the criminals.
well, clive, i hope you're proud of yourself for writing such a silly piece: whether or not you enjoyed a gun show is completely and totally irrelevant to the question of "gun control."
indeed, it couldn't be more irrelevant.
there are only two considerations that are relevant: the first is the meaning of the second ammendment.
the last time the supreme court ruled on it (back in the '30s), for example, the court ruled that the second ammendment supported the right to guns that existed at the time of the constitution's writing.
this time, the court ruled differently, but also ruled that regulation is legitimate.
so the constitution, one way or another, in two separate supreme court rulings, allows guns of one kind or another in a regulated environment.
which takes us to the second question: what kinds of regulations make sense?
i had to stroll down 60 comments to discover that no one responded to your contemptuously stupid misreading of the debate, so let us try and help you out.
criminals have guns, check?
so now a criminal is mugging me with a gun, check?
now that criminal is either a professional, at which point it is foolish to engage him with a gun, or he's a crazed amaterur, at which point it is foolish to engage him with a gun.
meanwhile, most murders that take place with guns take place when the murderer already knows the victim; similarly, most accidents that children have with guns don't result from a criminal having a gun but from an improperly stored gun in the house.
so here's what a rational soceity concludes: we have a constitution that allows some form of gun ownership, but we have a lot of information that suggests that there is little criminal deterrence from owning a gun and a great deal of incidental violence that results from ready accessibility to guns. therefore, we should attempt to limit access to guns to be sure that only those who would handle them responsibly ever get them, we should work to encourage people to understand that owning a gun increases your chances of accidental death, and we should tax the living daylights out of bullets (guns being far too widespread).
in your entire posting, you spent these words on the real issue: "the seeming resistance in some quarters to any and all forms of regulation is ridiculous." ya think? maybe next time you want to write about guns, you might spend some time on that and not so much time proving how much more american you are than some mythical georgetown neighbor of yours, a remark so surpassingly smug and obnoxious that i doubt i'll be reading your future efforts on this matter even if you do some day wake up and decide to think about something important.
well, clive, i hope you're proud of yourself for writing such a silly piece: whether or not you enjoyed a gun show is completely and totally irrelevant to the question of "gun control."
indeed, it couldn't be more irrelevant.
there are only two considerations that are relevant: the first is the meaning of the second ammendment.
the last time the supreme court ruled on it (back in the '30s), for example, the court ruled that the second ammendment supported the right to guns that existed at the time of the constitution's writing.
this time, the court ruled differently, but also ruled that regulation is legitimate.
so the constitution, one way or another, in two separate supreme court rulings, allows guns of one kind or another in a regulated environment.
which takes us to the second question: what kinds of regulations make sense?
i had to stroll down 60 comments to discover that no one responded to your contemptuously stupid misreading of the debate, so let us try and help you out.
criminals have guns, check?
so now a criminal is mugging me with a gun, check?
now that criminal is either a professional, at which point it is foolish to engage him with a gun, or he's a crazed amaterur, at which point it is foolish to engage him with a gun.
meanwhile, most murders that take place with guns take place when the murderer already knows the victim; similarly, most accidents that children have with guns don't result from a criminal having a gun but from an improperly stored gun in the house.
so here's what a rational soceity concludes: we have a constitution that allows some form of gun ownership, but we have a lot of information that suggests that there is little criminal deterrence from owning a gun and a great deal of incidental violence that results from ready accessibility to guns. therefore, we should attempt to limit access to guns to be sure that only those who would handle them responsibly ever get them, we should work to encourage people to understand that owning a gun increases your chances of accidental death, and we should tax the living daylights out of bullets (guns being far too widespread).
in your entire posting, you spent these words on the real issue: "the seeming resistance in some quarters to any and all forms of regulation is ridiculous." ya think? maybe next time you want to write about guns, you might spend some time on that and not so much time proving how much more american you are than some mythical georgetown neighbor of yours, a remark so surpassingly smug and obnoxious that i doubt i'll be reading your future efforts on this matter even if you do some day wake up and decide to think about something important.
Yikes, nuclear weapons are not "arms" that individual are able to "bear," so no, they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Nor are they able to be utilized on one's own soil, making them decidedly incapable of being used in a defensive fashion for any domestic purposes.
Nice descent into idiocy though. Why make a rational argument when you can just be ridiculous, right?
Dopa Vash,
"It seems the most of the gun-control crowd tends to suffer from a sweeping ignorance, Like davido supplied with his comment, about guns and Gun-shows. (BTW, someone who is licensed to sell firearms still must do the background check, even at a Gunshow. It is the private sellers who are not required to."
And so what exactly is it that makes my comment one that comes from "sweeping ignorance"?
I said that had Mr. Crook been a convicted felon or a mental patient, he could have bought a gun no questions asked. And he could from an unlicensed seller, as the last sentence I quoted from your post makes clear.
As for the statement that "The criminals already have guns; gun control disarms the rest of us," it's a tired bumper sticker slogan that has been refuted time and again.
Evidence please, Doug.
Hey Doug, YOU haven't refuted anything. It's easy to make a blanket statement and have nothing to back up your argument. Why don't you be more specific, instead of attacking a so-called "bumper sticker slogan".
What exactly is it with every one anti-gun making either extreme remarks about nuclear arms or being like some other country, or...just bitching about how a slogan is tired? Either way, you anti-gun folks have an abundance of illogical statements on your side, and there's no way anyone logical can argue with that. I'm just glad I don't live under your extremely emotional, irrational rooftops.
Congratulations Christian, you've finally come to the realization that cultural and socio-economic factors are what drives crime, not access to firearms.
True. Firearms are just what tend to make crime lethal. Modern day Britain by all accounts is just as plagued by violent crime as the US. But it's only about a third as plagued by the crime of homicide as the US.
It is not obvious to me what is wrong with the argument that says, "The criminals already have guns; gun control disarms the rest of us."
All you have to do is look at the gun laws of a number of other nations to see it is indeed obvious that such an argument is wrong. The main problem with it is its conflation of the terms "control" and "prohibition." The gun control laws of several countries allow for widespread gun ownership AND make it extremely difficult and expensive for criminals to go outside the tightly regulated system in an effort to access firearms. Now, "difficult and expensive" aren't synonymous with "impossible" -- truly no society has or ever will completely prevent criminals from possessing and using firearms. But it is possible to have in place a system of regulations that allows for widespread gun ownership among the citizenry and keeps guns out of the hands of the vast majority of criminals. Simply look at the examples of places like Finland, Canada, Germany and Switzerland.
The choice Americans face isn't between gun prohibition and gun ownership rights. The choice Americans face is between our current, absurdly laissez faire gun ownership rights system -- which eschews even the most common sense regulations and which gives America the grimmest murder tallies in the rich world -- and an effective, prudently regulated gun ownership rights system similar to one of the models on offer in a number of gun-friendly rich countries.
The relationship between Americans and guns has less to do with the oft-touted 2nd amendment and more to do with our origins and the nature of law enforcement. Americans are by nature independent and self-reliant. What other traits could have wrested this nation from its original condition? These traits persist, even among sanctimonious urbanistas and other people who have never fired a gun or operated other potentially hazardous tools.
Law enforcement seen by most Americans is not designed to prevent specific crime, i.e., the crime that happens to you. Only by chance does a patrol officer happen upon a criminal in the act. Law enforcement is designed to reduce crime through pattern definition and analysis, with the law enforced after the fact in almost all cases. Great in theory, the problem in fact has similarities with public schools - how is law enforcement financed? The answer is "locally" and the results - as with public schools - tend to correlate to funding levels. So when independent, self-reliant Americans figure out that the most law enforcement can do for them, should the worst happen, is render their lives into an impersonal pattern, the idea of preparing for the unthinkable gains a sense of obligation, one might say "duty".
FBI crime and police staffing data can be applied to determine the annual number of crimes-per-uniformed-officer in your locality. I did this using 2005 data and determined that in my city there were more than 7 reported violent crimes per uniformed officer per year, making my city one of the 3 worst in the nation, according to this metric. I should point out that the FBI data includes only crimes reported to police agencies and that no 2005 data was received from New Orleans.
I think this view is instructive of the way forward. Gun control is not at all incompatible with gun ownership. While I personally have a hard time justifying private ownership of automatic weapons, I have an even larger issue with lawful American citizens denied the right to self-defense on equal terms with common criminals, especially given that in many localities, Americans can not count on their local police to provide adequate protection. If the argument is truly "self defense", then the private citizen doesn't need more than pistols, rifles and shotguns. Semi-auto is plenty enough to save your life and very, very few home-invading criminals are insane enough to challenge the business end of a shotgun.
In a crime-ridden city, where limited financial resources prevent a "police surge" solution and crime levels distract police officers from deterence programs, wouldn't a policy of personal armament - backed by background checks, registration and mandatory periodic training - make sense? Isn't this exactly the same thinking that leads people to arm their homes with stronger locks and security systems? Why stop at protecting your home, why not protect your life, too? Better question - do your local liberal politicians care more about your life or their own ideals?
If you aggregate FBI crime data for states that lack an income tax and compare results to states with the highest income taxes, the funding issue will become apparent. Cities in states with high income taxes average noticeably lower crime rates than cities in states that lack an income tax. Given a choice between high income taxes and the state-sanctioned right to self defense, we should bear in mind that Americans also have strong opinions regarding taxes.
After all, this country was raised on coffee, not tea.
wgqur
pmez
pmez
iuzfrk ibav tncjoel ircb
rohd yqjulm eudzbm vxaucn
vpxn cgjb
pthqxb crjma