Who doesn’t need a gun?

 

The New York Times loves publishing anti-gun screeds, the latest one comes from Gary Gutting, a Professor of Philosophy, obviously not from the Ayn Rand school, but from Rousseau and Plato who believed in the “collective good” being above the individual good.

In his diatribe, Who Needs a Gun? he wrote:

A gun is a tool, and we choose tools based on their function. The primary function of a gun is to kill or injure people or animals. In the case of people, the only reason I might have to shoot them — or threaten to do so — is that they are immediately threatening serious harm. So a first question about owning a gun is whether I’m likely to be in a position to need one to protect human life. A closely related question is whether, if I were in such a position, the gun would be available and I would be able to use it effectively.

Today I had lunch at Subway, instead of leaving my gun in the car, I put it in my jacket’s pocket and had it with me. The reason I was able to do that is because 1. A concealed carry license is easy to get in Tennessee. 2. Subway didn’t post those Gun-Free Zone signs that would have kept me unarmed while doing nothing to stop crime.

Unless you live in (or frequent) dangerous neighborhoods or have family or friends likely to threaten you, it’s very unlikely that you’ll need a gun for self-defense. Further, counterbalancing any such need is the fact that guns are dangerous. If I have one loaded and readily accessible in an emergency (and what good is it if I don’t?), then there’s a non-negligible chance that it will lead to great harm. A gun at hand can easily push a family quarrel, a wave of depression or a child’s curiosity in a fatal direction.

Criminals can travel from a bad neighborhood to a good neighborhood, Gutting, a gun can be kept loaded in a safe if you have kids (and you can teach your kids not to touch your guns). As for family quarrels and accidents, why not remove knives as well? And let’s get rid of those deadly swimming pools which kill more kids than gun accidents, and amazing fact since far more people own guns than pools.

Guns do have uses other than defense against attackers. There may, for example, still be a few people who actually need to hunt to feed their families. But most hunting now is recreational and does not require keeping weapons at home. Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season. Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.

Gutting, if you want to move to Sweden, go ahead, but real Americans do not want the government babysitting their guns.

Finally, there’s the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government. Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.

The Soviet Union felt that way about Afghanistan once, yet look at what a bunch of Taliban nuts with AK-47s did to an army with planes, helicopters, and body armor. Our own troops have suffered casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So tell me something, Gutting, do you really think 100 million civilians with all kinds of weapons are really that weak?  I don’t have to watch Red Dawn to know the power of civilians with guns, I only have to quote Japanese Admiral Yamamoto: “The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants.”

Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us — including many current gun owners — don’t have a good reason to keep guns in their homes. This conclusion follows quite apart from whether we have a right to own guns or what restrictions should be put on this right. Also, the conclusion derives from what makes sense for each of us as individuals and so doesn’t require support from contested interpretations of statistical data.

This is what the liberals call “compromise,” which is why I don’t compromise with anyone. Tell me, Gutting, is your Right to Free Speech restricted? Do you need a government permit to publish crap? This collectivist “balancing” crap is not in the constitution. We don’t have to balance anything, we punish those who break the law and ignore the rest. That’s the American way.

I entirely realize that this line of thought will not convince the most impassioned gun supporters, who see owning guns as fundamental to their way of life. But about 70 million Americans own guns and only about four million belong to the N.R.A., which must include a large number of the most impassioned. So there’s reason to think that many gun owners would be open to reconsidering the dangers their weapons pose. Also, almost 30 percent of gun owners don’t think that guns make a household safer, and only 48 percent cite protection (rather than hunting, target shooting, etc.) as their main reason for having a gun.

Nice way to spin the numbers. First of all, 4 million NRA members is far greater than all members of organizations that support gun control combined. Secondly, some gun owners falsely assume that their guns are safe and thus don’t join the NRA, but I doubt any gun owner wants your ideas implemented. Steven Spielberg is a gun collector, do you think he wants his guns stored in some government facility? As for the numbers you spin, here are the real numbers from the link quote quoted.

“58% of Republicans in households without guns say they would be comfortable having a gun in their home, compared with 30% of Democrats.”
Source: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

Democrats who probably don’t own guns and thus know not what they talk about.  Let’s go back to your last point:

“and only 48 percent cite protection (rather than hunting, target shooting, etc.) as their main reason for having a gun”

 

Different people have different reasons for owning guns, that 48% however is an increase of 22 points from 26% in 1999. That means MORE gun owners are citing protection as their reason to own guns.

Either way, we don’t regulate the First Amendment on an usage basis. One man burns a flag, another sings a country song, another watch naked Japanese women eating pudding. It’s all protected Free Speech. In “The People vs. Larry Flynt,” the infamous pornographer won his right to defame Jerry Falwell with bad taste satire. The Second Amendment deserves to be protected as well. If I can watch porn at home, I can keep my guns at home. A man’s home is his castle after all, that’s an ancient doctrine that predates the Second Amendment.

Our periodic shock at mass shootings and gang wars has little effect on our gun culture because most people don’t see guns as a particular threat to them

 

That’s because they aren’t a threat. Car accidents are far more common, yet most people would rather die on the roads than lower the speed limit. Why? Because life is not worth living if you’re on the highway doing less than 65 m.p.h. Gang wars don’t affect us if we don’t live in bad neighborhood, and mass shootings are rare compared to stabbings, beating, robberies, self-defense shootings, criminal shootings, etc. Besides that, most gun haters are too lazy to join the Brady bastards, today they worry about guns and tomorrow they freak out over Miley Cyrus twerking. It’s hard to call them socialists or liberals because in reality, they lack ideological commitment to anything. So there you have it, if you can get 4 million gun banners to pay $35 a year to the National Gun Hating Association or whatever hoplophobe group you come up with, congrats. In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath.

I’m not suggesting that opponents of gun violence abandon political action. We need to make it harder to buy guns (through background checks, waiting periods, etc.) both for those with criminal intentions and for law-abiding citizens who have no real need. But on the most basic level, much of our deadly violence occurs because we so often have guns readily available. Their mere presence makes suicide, domestic violence and accidents more likely. The fewer people with guns at hand, the less gun violence.

Thanks for letting us know, your idiotic article will be shared and read by many, it will be used as evidence against any gun grabber who demands “reasonable” gun regulation. Some may accuse me of giving you free advertising, but you know what? I rather confront my enemy instead of denying his existence.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/who-needs-a-gun/?_r=0