gun rights and gun control

Many gun posts lately and in BiA history, but none of us have ever talked about differing views. People can go on forever debating about the pro/cons of private gun ownership. I think I figured out how to sum up the political debate in a somewhat simple and rational manner.

This one's been in my head for a while. Are guns good or bad?

If you could uninvent the gun, would you? I'm not even sure how to answer that question myself. Guns make killing alot easier, but that same power allows weak and old people to protect themselves. It allows me to hold off multiple assailants in my own home. But I agree that guns are dangerous and can be very bad. So I won't bother to answer that question, so I'm answering this in light of the fact that guns will never be uninvented and that we live in a country where there is almost one gun for every person. So keep that in mind.

I realized the more important question is "are people good or bad"? For both political arguments, the answer is they are bad.People who are anti-guns and pro-guns don't trust other members of society, it just depends on which part of society.

Pro-gun people don't trust criminals, while by logic they HAVE to trust fellow lawfully owning gun citizens. The reason is because they know criminals don't follow laws, but must believe that fellow conceal carry citizens will use their weapons appropriately (avoid conflict) and accurately (if conflict cannot be avoided). Obviously in a state where conceal carry is easy like Arizona, there will be more "good guys" carrying than criminals. But liberals fear normal Joe Gun Enthusiast.

Anti-gun people obviously fear criminals but in addition are afraid of normal gun people. By outlawing guns, they hope to prevent mass shooting crimes from happening. I would agree that stuff like the theater shooting and Virginia Tech would decrease dramatically. They use legally bought guns because how is an unsocial college kid gonna find an illegal gun?  You'd have to know shady people to tap into the black market. Sounds like the type of crowd that gangsters know.... leading to my belief that bad guys can always get guns if they really want them. They have to get it through the black market because any convicted felon would fail the security check. So by making guns illegal, you're only stopping good people from buying. Of course this also stops the lunatic mass shootings at least. In addition, you'd be stopping belligerent gun carriers from turning a bar fistfight into a shootout.

So the bottom line: is a person more afraid of regular criminals or mass shooting crazy killers?
An anti-gun policy enables criminals, while a pro-gun policy enables crazy killers.

There are basically three responses depending on the states:

A) No one can buy guns: New York city, Chicago, Washington DC banned guns before the Supreme Court made overruled and states like Massachusetts makes it a pain in the ass to buy one.
B) People can buy guns but not conceal carry in public: moderate-liberal states like CA.
C) You can buy and conceal carry: most states in America.

Which one would I like to live in? Find out below.

 Both criminals and good guys like me would like to carry a gun around freely, but only a criminal does so. Concealed Carry permits are nearly impossible to get in California, the only people carrying right now are cops, gangsters, and super paranoid people who are doing it illegally. But they are already criminals for breaking the law. If CC was made legal, you're only adding people who respected and followed the law in the first place. Basically the number of guns in the right hands will rise, while the number of guns in the wrong hands stays the same. Selling guns legally but not allowing CC is asking for trouble. This allows crazy people to get the means to shoot people, while not allowing said people to defend themselves. In this view it would be better to not sell guns at all.

But if you don't sell guns at all, people can be assaulted in their homes by criminals with black market guns. And honestly, you could ban guns in 2012 and criminals would still have them in 2050. Cars and other products were embargoed to Cuba in the 1950s. Guess what? Cubans are still using those same old school cars. They're banged up but they work. And guns last way longer than cars. Forget new black market inflow, there's already millions of guns in existence in America.

In light of the two points above, having legal conceal carry makes sense. Of course, this permit should be given only after a thorough background check and passing grade on a mandatory shooting exam. The only downside here is if a killer starts shooting and three guys have CC guns, all hell will break loose because it's not obvious who is the bad guy. I've heard many stories of mass killings, and a few stories of a good guy stopping a bad guy (westminster store owner and that 19 year old with a baby are two examples) but not yet one story of a good guy shooting another good guy in such situation. It could happen, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to live in such a society. But I don't want to live in a society where bad guys are the ONLY ones with the guns (outside of cops).

You can now see that I am pro-gun. It makes sense to me. But even among gun enthusiasts, there's conflict.The bottom line is a fight between one's liberties and one's securities.This is where I'm middle of the line. There has to be some sort of compromise that allows one of protect oneself with a gun while also protecting those who don't want to carry guns.

Hardcore gun supporters don't want magazine limits. As much as I'd like to have 30 rounders at the range, I'll happily trade that for a fair fight between my 6 round CC revolver and a killer's 10 round pistol/rifle. Or if I'm not carrying, at least I have a better chance of running away or to charge during a reload.

On the other hand, I'm against things like caliber restrictions and banning tactical add-ons. No one has ever robbed someone else with a .308, why the hell would they use a .50? As useless as Barretts and Ferraris are, they should be legal because this is a free country.


 To sum up my opinion, I would like to give an example.

Some stores/restaurants have signs that say "this place is gun-free". Would this make you happy to go in there? Then you are anti-gun. I would avoid the place. It's not because I don't respect their political views, they can think however they want. It's because that sign says "Rob this place please" to criminals or "you can get alot of victims here" to crazy killers.


J.Frosty said...

haha good post, i 2nd that entirely. As for that "This place is gun-free" sign, I've never seen and will also avoid such places.

CP said...

I support allowing cc permits, but there should be required certification and re-certification involved to make sure these shooters are in tip top shooting condition. Before one can get the permit, there should be extensive background checks, psychological evaluations, and perhaps interviews with family members, friends, neighbors, etc. This closely mirrors the requirements to become an FBI agent, but if the city/state is going to allow someone to carry a weapon on them which possibly can hurt or kill another person while in the act of defending oneself, I don't think it's too much to ask. They should require the permit applicant to pay all of the cost associated with the initial background checks as well as recurring re-certifications. This will make a barrier where not everyone can get a permit, but then again, you don't want everyone to have one.

Bryan said...

I thought about psychological evaluations, but many will see it as excessive. It reminds me of the "literacy tests" given to blacks to vote in the South in the 1950s-60s. But of course I'd rather have that long route than no option at all. The psychological checks will cost alot of money, but it's fair if the CC applicant has to pay for all the costs.

looks like you're on the security end of the "liberty vs security dilemma", but it's good to be safe.