Sunday, August 30, 2009

Out of the mouths of babes

posted by The Vidiot @ 10:45 AM Permalink

14-year-old Teen Vidiot gets it:
If they make it really hard for normal people to have guns, then doesn't that mean that only the bad people will have the guns?
The kid has a point. (Since he's only 14, I didn't bother pointing out the bad people who have guns aren't just the criminals, but they're the police and the government too. No reason to awaken his inner anarchist... yet.)



At 1:10 PM, Blogger Bill Arnett said...

My answer: No. No matter how difficult they make it for "good" citizens to buy guns they will buy guns anyway, using the same methods used by criminals if necessary (private, unregulated personal sales, gun shows, mail order, or whatever means necessary).

I also recognize that congress and the public they represent will NEVER make it impossible for law-abiding to purchase guns as the law would be flouted anyway, making more innocent citizens "criminals" simply because they choose firearms with which to defend themselves (which is a ridiculous premise as owning a gun makes it far more likely that the gun owner will be shot instead of a burglar, thief, ne'er-do-well, etc.)

A far better way to defend one's self is a stun gun, many of which can be purchased for a very small fraction of the price of a gun (I have two, combined cost of about $75), and many of which have a wrist strap that pulls out a pin, disabling the stun gun so it can't be turned on it's owner if the bad guy should wrest it away from the homeowner/theft victim, etc..

Good question, though, and one needing considerable rumination upon from time to time.

I do hope the Teen Vidiot will chose to do some posting himself if he is so inclined.

At 3:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


A similar (and very accurate) logic can be used with the great unwashed masses regarding automobiles as with guns, in that people untrained in driving cars are just as likely to get killed or hurt in (or by) a motor vehicle as is the neophyte gun owner to be victimized by a firearm.

Both the problem and the blessing of legal gun "ownership" is that a non-felony convicted resident need not "qualify" for a firearm competency license (in most communities) before committing the simple act of "equalizer" possession.

Just think how it could be if the government were to socially incur a similarly responsible culture of gun ownership as it does for our use of automobiles ... if you excise the hypocritically pontificous, pseudo-moralizing out of the gun ownership issue, ultimately, you would indeed end up with a much more civil society, as America's founders initially envisioned.

Unfortunately for all us hoi-polloi, the U.S. Government hasn't had a Constitutional focus since before WWII.

And also -- as the circumstances have proven time and again in every community the has responsibly enacted conceal-carry -- the incident of robbery (in all its permutations) drastically reduces. Also, it has proven to vastely reduce the results of mass-murder (which is also why the most recent mass-murderers in America have all chosen "gun-free" zones at which to commit their slaughter).

The gun prohibitionists of America and such places as England have already proven that gun prohibition is actually the best form of criminal-class empowerment ever to be produced by a govenment ... but hey, birds-of-a-feather and all that tripe.

Nothing's perfect.


At 3:50 PM, Blogger The Vidiot said...

"...have already proven that gun prohibition is actually the best form of criminal-class empowerment ever to be produced by a govenment."

Indeed. Well said.

At 7:07 PM, Blogger Bill Arnett said...

"There shall be no ex post facto laws…" passed that would instantly criminalize the lawful constitutional conduct of law-abiding citizens, creating hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of new criminals pursuing a formerly legal activity overnight.

Once bitten by the snake it is impossible to withdraw and return the venom to the snake.


Post a Comment

<< Home