I Was Strapped With Gats
When You Was Cuddling The Cabbage Patch

Um...Aside from the fact that DC's crime rate continues to drop along with its homicide rate, now the lowest in as long as I've lived here (the 80s). Meanwhile the rest of country's mid-sized cities are experiencing a boom in gun violence and homicides and the police in these cities are blaming...easy access to guns and the willingness to use them.

What would you do if you owned a gun anyway?

Mm - Another delicious can of worms opened.

Well, to answer Paul's question, Matt would do anything *lawful* he wanted to do with it ...as millions of other law-abiding folks in this country do every day.

As far as rising crime rates go: there are myriad reasons, not least of which is declining federal support for local law enforcement.

What would you do if you owned a gun anyway?

Shoot at targets, if there were a gun range, mostly. In principle, I might use it for self-defense if this ever happened.

"What would you do if you owned a gun anyway?"

A horrible kitchen shooting accident involving Matt gunning down Spackerman, followed by Matt entitling a long series of repetitive blog posts: What Gives You The Right To Fuck With Our Kitchen Handguns.

Seeing how the house reacts to a squirrel, I'm really not sure about this being a good idea.

I expect you'll get raked over the coals for this post, Matt, but I must say that I agree. I'm a liberal who has never been able to get overly worked up on this issue. That's not say I don't care about it. It's just to say that it never seemed worth losing elections over, or having intramural fights over, or anything else. Mostly it reminds me of the crazy culture politics on the other side of the political spectrum.

By the way, Matt, you can usually go to a range and rent guns. I've done this a few times in San Francisco. You don't need training or anything. It's kind of fun, although if you do it a few times it might cure you of your desire to actually own your own weapon. It's not as fun as, say, bowling.

i don't have quite the gun-crush you do, altho i am the semi-odd lefty who doesn't get too worked about gun control.

that said, surely you're not serious about DC's gun laws "proving" anything besides the futility of a single city barring guns when it shares a border with what remains a gun-infatuated state (VA).

lessons for, say, federal action, don't really seem to be on offer here.

josh bivens

Arm yourself or harm yourself.

Myself I prefer the crossbow, mace, and samurai sword. All legal.

that said, surely you're not serious about DC's gun laws "proving" anything besides the futility of a single city barring guns when it shares a border with what remains a gun-infatuated state (VA).

Yes, yes, this is correct. The analysis, however, points to the same conclusion -- the DC gun ban is pointless, it's easily evaded by criminals, but non-trivially burdens law-abiding people.

"Yes, yes, this is correct. The analysis, however, points to the same conclusion -- the DC gun ban is pointless, it's easily evaded by criminals, but non-trivially burdens law-abiding people."

Wouldn't the analysis lean more towards suggesting that we should ban guns in Virginia as well (I know, I know, I'd also like a pony, but still...)?

From a post in January:
All my life, people have been telling me "Matt, you can't get drunk and start swinging knives around at people."

Maybe you're not the best advocate of gun rights.

"the crossbow, mace, and samurai sword. All legal."

Well, I wouldn't try to carry these times around on the illusion that they are legal, if I were you . . .

Seeing how the house reacts to a squirrel, I'm really not sure about this being a good idea.

Rob wins.

I mean, really, go back to the squirrel story and sprinkle in *BANG* "Shit!" *BANG-BANG* "Dammit!" It becomes even more disturbing.

The problem in DC is all the unethical gun dealers in Virginia *cough*Ollie North*cough* that make guns available like bubble gum there.

Wouldn't the analysis lean more towards suggesting that we should ban guns in Virginia as well

So Virginia, Utah, and thousand other locales have easier access to guns, yet lower crime than D.C., and yet the answer is more gun control? Bah.

Gun control is to the left what federal drug sentencing is to the right. Feel good measures that accomplish nothing.

I've never owned a gun, but I have owned a 43" broadsword. I remember when I was retrieving my sword from a college party where I'd left it (I can do this trick where I balance the broadsword lengthwise in my mouth while eating fire) and a cop stopped me. He wasn't sure what he was supposed to do with a dude walking down the street with a broadsword. Eventually he just got my name, told me not to attack anyone, and sent me on my way.

Of course, an ordinary policy debate whether it's a good idea to let folks have firearms to amuse or protect themselves or a better idea to enact laws prohibiting that because it results in too many accidental, impulsive, or avoidable criminal uses is theoretically "outlawed" or preempted if the constitution provides the right.

I don't necessarily get worked up over gun control, nor do I really care if Utahns or Montanans can own guns (they can if they want to). Heck, I've even won awards from the NRA for shooting guns like any body who went to camp and found out they were a really good shot. I just don't see the necessary allure in owning a gun. To me gun owners, in the city, all of my experience relates to cities, are just highly paranoid people. I've been mugged, my house has been robbed, I used to chase car thieves off of my block with a baseball bat, but I never felt that I should own a gun. I guess to each their own or whatever.

BTW, comparing a major urban area like DC to Utah is just dishonest. And, if you want to talk about Virginia why don't we compare DC to Richmond? Not too favorable now, eh? The problem with gun control on the left is that is politically dangerous and it is incredibly difficult to actually achieve any true and full restriction on firearms. Drug sentencing isn't a problem for the right it's a problem for everyone. It feels great for everyone and their is no real drug offender lobby like the NRA to make it a real issue. Too bad, the drug laws are much worse than gun control laws.

Wow. I agree with MY so much I'm beginning to feel like his long lost twin.

Put me down as another lefty liberal packing heat. What would I do with it, you ask? Well, first, practice a lot. Then lock it in my gun safe. Then, if a bad guy invades my home, I'll shoot him with it. That's what.

Second Amendment only gives you the right to serve in the military. The interpretation that it gives you the right to own weapons for private use is right-wing hogwash.

Oh, right. I forgot. The founding fathers were worried their right to be conscripted would be abridged, and wanted to make it clear that individuals could not be stripped of their right to be conscripted to military service. Got it.

Matt: why don't you write more on this issue? I'm vaguely agnostic on gun control, and I'd actually be interested to hear a non-insane (i.e., non-libertarian) defense of lax gun control policy. There are a handful of issues where you've periodically taken dopey positions seemingly out of a combination of ignorance, apathy, and your stubborn contrarian streak (environmental policy, for instance), but you've never really talked at any length about your reasons for your gun stance - or even described that stance in any detail. How lax would you like gun regulation to be? Are you for easy access to MAC-10s, or are you for letting people buy handguns with safety locks after passing a gun safety course and a thorough background check? I'd genuinely like to hear more from you on this.

Slippery:

1. I don't care what the FFs were worried about. That has no import on the meaning of the Constitution outside of Scalia's head (or buttocks, if you can tell the difference).

2. Even if you care what they worried about, they certainly didn't worry about making sure people could own something that didn't exist.

3. And besides, the Libertarian Mantra Interpretation would imply that the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure Nat Turner could buy a gun as long as he had the $$$.

If the Dems are ever going to be serious about gaining on Republicans, they need to jettison the anti gun stance, a failure both in practical and symbolic terms.

The founding fathers were worried their right to be conscripted would be abridged, and wanted to make it clear that individuals could not be stripped of their right to be conscripted to military service. Got it.

What is the latest NRA line on the "well-regulated militia" clause of the amendment in question? Last I heard, it was apparently just to make it fit the parchment margins better.

BTW, comparing a major urban area like DC to Utah is just dishonest.

No, the obvious point is that the availability of guns does not correlate well with violent crime.

Get a shotgun Matt, unless you plan on spending a lot of time at the shooting range, handguns aren't very reliable.

Ok, what the FFs meant does matter some. I'm not a "strict constructionist" (vomit) or a libertarian (more vomit and intestinal pressure). But I never understood how a series of amendments dealing with individual rights would establish the right of governments to form armies.

Whatever.

I make no apology for wanting the capacity to defend myself and my family against bad guys. I actually hate guns. I hate all the machismo. I loath the idea of hunting as a sport even though I know it can serve a purpose. I feel like throttling people who claim to love nature and, as an expression of that love, blow the brains out of wild animals for fun. But I will shoot bad guys that break into my home and threaten my family. That's a basic responsibility.

It's not as fun as, say, bowling.

Um, no. There's a reason why you don't see any "first person bowler" games.

handguns aren't very reliable.

This is also wrong.

No, the obvious point is that the availability of guns does not correlate well with violent crime.

That certainly doesn't follow, and is probably false.

The farthest you can go with inferences is that local legal restrictions don't correlate well with actual availability.

I feel like throttling people who claim to love nature and, as an expression of that love, blow the brains out of wild animals for fun.

I submit that wild hogs were put here by God for us to shoot and eat. High reproduction rates, a pest animal, ugly, and loads of tasty meat. Fantastic.

But I never understood how a series of amendments dealing with individual rights would establish the right of governments to form armies.

Nobody said anything like that. If you can't see the huge difference between a "right of governments" (a contradiction in terms) to form armies and the individual right to serve in an army, then there is no point discussing with you.

But I will shoot bad guys that break into my home and threaten my family. That's a basic responsibility.

How far would you pursue that responsibility? Would you shoot drivers who don't stop when you are trying to cross the street? They are more likely than burglars to kill you or your family members.

I submit that wild hogs were put here by God for us to shoot and eat.

I feel the same way about children.

CalDem:

Handguns are generally very reliable. Plain old revolvers are extremely reliable.

Infant -

Likewise, if you can't tell that my discussion of the "rights" of government was meant precisely to be ironical, then there's no point discussing anything with you.

You're back to positing a right of individuals to be conscripted into armies. I will let that stand as a self-refuting argument.

I'm also not interested in splitting hairs over what I will or won't shoot somebody over. Would you shoot somebody who was raping your wife? Do you really want to get into an argument like that? The point, obviously, was not the threshold at which I choose to use a gun, but the principle that I need to have access to lethal force for self-defense if it's needed. If you want to be argumentative, find another mark.

How far would you pursue that responsibility? Would you shoot drivers who don't stop when you are trying to cross the street? They are more likely than burglars to kill you or your family members.

This is just getting stupid.

Will the pro-gun people please address Christmas' questions?

I'm personally against most gun control legislation, but I have to point out that, yes, you might shoot someone who attacked you. But you are many, many more times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't have a gun, don't want one (presently), hope my neighbors ain't packing, and loathe the proclaimations of the NRA. But the right, for whatever purpose (e.g., to form a well regulated militia to kick the King out of a free state) is given to to the people. People as in "We, the people of the United States, . . ."

Maybe that's anacronistic in these interesting urban times, but it seems to me that if you think so, at least as to ordinary firearms, you need to be amending the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, I also think that: "The Congress shall have power . . . to declare war . . . " is pretty clear too.

I'd just like to point out: D.C. does not have a blanket gun ban. It has a very stringent handgun ban. You may own, for example, a hunting rifle or I think a big ass shotgun, Omar-style (or maybe not, are Omar's guns some kind of automatic thing?), although you have to register it. I believe you must also store it unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked.

People should be allowed to purchase a gun if they want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a monumentally stupid decision to make.

"But Research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)"

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

MG:

That statistics badly misses the point. You don't have to shoot an intruder to defend yourself with a gun. Many, many crimes are prevented by would-be victims brandishing firearms without firing them. Estimates run from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year, but it's a hard thing to estimate, because theese incidents usually aren't reported to anybody. I'll post a link to those stats when I find them.

Also, target shooting is lots of fun. Even the most rabidly anti-gun people I've known have admitted that, if they've tried shooting.

Gswift, check out the first-person bowling game for the Nintendo Wii. It's really fun.

I don't care whether guns are banned or not. I just think it's stupid to keep a gun in an urban home for "self-protection." If you're worried about burglary, just insure your stuff.

I can see someone wanting a gun for self-protection if they had a violent stalker who might be plotting to hunt them down. But buying a gun to protect yourself in the event of a burglary is no protection at all. Turning on the lights to find the gun will scare off the average burglar. If you're already getting burglarized, do you really want to add to your problems by confronting a desperate criminal with your loaded weapon? That's as dumb as trying to fight a mugger for your wallet. Just hand it over. It's not worth the risk.

Besides, you can get really good renter's insurance for a lot less than you'd spend on a handgun, a gun safe, ammo, and a gun club membership.

True Lindsey, plus weigh the probability that your new gun will actually be used to stop a burglary (or any crime), vs. the probability that it will be stolen and used in a violent crime or somehow result in a violent accident.

Handguns are very reliable. Handgun shooters aren't, unless they practice a lot. I think this is what CalDem meant when he recommended a shotgun. A unskilled shooter might actually hit something with it.
For urban self-defense, I don't recommend a shotgun. Too much likelihood of collateral damage, hard to maneuver in tight spaces, easier for the bad guy (if nervy enough) to take away and use on you. If you're going to use a gun for urban self-defense, and want to do more good than harm, you have to commit to developing and maintaining real skills. Most folks won't, so they shouldn't.

Oh come on, people -- it's obvious why anyone would want a gun, liberal or conservative: when The Shit Goes Down, you gotta have yours. As I've been saying for a good 15 years, the day before a comprehensive nationwide handgun ban was to go into effect, you'd see lines of liberals out the doors of your local gun shops. And from a liberal p.o.v., is The Shit any *less* likely to Go Down today than it was in 1992? I know I'd be in the gun shop line on the eve of that fateful day, even though, today, my rational brain completely agrees with all of the valid points made by gun control advocates (e.g. that a gun owner is way likelier to shoot a family member than an intruder).

But buying a gun to protect yourself in the event of a burglary is no protection at all.

Some relevant numbers here. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Self-defense with firearms

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92

Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property

All crimes 82,500

I can tell who was raised with guns and who wasn't by reading these posts. I grew up a hunter, still walk through the woods with a gun occasionally, but rarely shoot anything. Guns and hunting were just part of life where I'm from. People who are raised with guns and know how to handle them properly are generally not a danger to themselves or loved ones. The people who wind up hurting themselves don't know how to handle them. They don't treat guns with the appropriate respect. I don't believe in the absolute right to assault weapons, but I'm also glad that Democrats are placing less emphasis on gun control. I know that in the otherwise Democratic (union) area I'm from, it was costing Democrats votes.

Speaking of The Shit Going Down, let's say you were in New Orleans when Katrina hit. Wouldn't a firearm of some sort have been a very useful tool? Just having one on your belt would have prevented a lot of trouble, I would think.

"What would you do if you owned a gun anyway?

Shoot at targets, if there were a gun range, mostly. In principle, I might use it for self-defense if this ever happened."

Or, if you got really angry, you might shoot a family member or friend. Or, you might accidentally shoot someone. Or, in trying to defend yourself, someone else might grab the gun and shoot you.

Most Americans are not very good at defending themselves with firearms. Many are highly irresponsible and have horrible temper control. Personally, I don't support a nationwide ban, but I am skeptical that allowing people to have guns makes for good policy. Personally, I would support everyone having a right to carry firearms if we all were required to serve in the military for 2 years - then we might know how to use them. Also, I am skeptical that making guns illegal doesn't raise the prices of guns substantially - it was my understanding that they were often quite expensive in DC.

True, too many steves. Shame that the New Orleans police went around confiscating all the guns at that time.

I used to hate MY when he first started blogging, but he's slowly winning me over. This post raises him a notch in my esteem. Dude has balls.

My feeling is that DC law has been working as hard as possible for the past few decades to try and demonstrate the maxim that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

So, when are you and Kay Bailey Hutchison moving to the hood?

Personally, I would support everyone having a right to carry firearms if we all were required to serve in the military for 2 years - then we might know how to use them.

The Swiss model? Yeah, I can run with that.

The relative safety of guns in urban v. rural areas changes enormously. Unfortunately, you can't just ban guns in urban areas because they're still easy enough for criminals to obtain if they're legal in the next county. So you've got to ban them everywhere, which pisses of people like Gus who live in areas where guns are ordinary and not particularly dangerous.

So gun control advocates look to types of guns to limit. No cheap handguns or assault weapons. Fewer weapons designed for killing human beings. Most Americans can get behind these kinds of restrictions because they're very sensible and don't significantly put out ordinary gun owners.

But these types of reforms haven't happened because the gun lobby, led by the NRA, is the most effective lobbying group ithe past 20 years.

On the off chance you're still reading comments here ... can't you just buy a gun and keep it in storage gun club outside city limits?

For urban self-defense, I don't recommend a shotgun. Too much likelihood of collateral damage, hard to maneuver in tight spaces, easier for the bad guy (if nervy enough) to take away and use on you.

If we are talking about in-home defense, a shotgun is a much better choice than a handgun. If you shoot with a handgun and miss, it is extremely likely to go through several sets of walls and thus injure someone completely unrelated. Furthemore, if you did miss alot (lets assume it's dark and the burglar is clever) then you'll still be able to use it as a club.

Having said all that, a) a bat or large stick (bo-staff) can also provide "access to lethal-force" as desired by Slippery Pete, b) enrolling in any of the many self-defense courses would be another excellent option for learning how to deal with an intruder, yet has none of the downsides of a handgun (cost, danger to self or danger to others).

Ultimately, Matt Yglesius, if you are worried about your personal safety (and not your consumer electronics) inside your home, get a baseball bat and take some self-defense courses (I suggest aikido or hapkido, the latter if you can find it is preferred). If you are still not reassured, get a shotgun with a trigger lock.

Gswift, those numbers lump all crimes together. I'm sure there are some crimes where a gun is very useful, if you happen to have one at the ready.

On the other hand, how many people actually do have a gun at the ready in the average run-of-the-mill burglary situation? I.e., how many of the people who manage to pull a gun on a burglar only managed to do so because they were keeping a loaded gun lying around? A loaded gun lying around your house day-in and day-out is a much bigger risk than anything a burglar might do to you.

Buying a gun to defend yourself against burglary has minimal marginal utility compared to not threatening burglars. Threatening burglars is stupid. If you can scare the burglar off by turning on the lights or making noise, which is how most people do it (whether they mean to or not), that's great. Otherwise, why bother? That's what home owners insurance is for.

Lindsay Beyerstein,

A loaded gun lying around your house day-in and day-out is a much bigger risk than anything a burglar might do to you.

IIRC, trigger locks reduce this risk dramatically. Also, your points, (which I generally agree with FWIW) assume that the burglar is non-threatening. But how is this known before hand? If you look at the link MY provided early in the comments, that burglar was armed. Of course he was also scared away, which again supports your larger point, but still, why assume that a burglar is non violent?

Edo made my point already, but I'll do it anyway: some burlgars might be scared away by you turning on the lights. Many more burglars will be scared away by your gun.

I saw Julian's post. What an awful experience. I think Julian and his friends got robbed once before that, too.

I'm just saying that if you interrupt a B&E in progress, chances are the burglar is not there to start shit with you. The burglary business model is stealth-based.

It's all about probabilities. Buying a gun as a strategy for dealing with burglars is a bad bet, especially if you have insurance and a working phone to dial 911. Like I said in my earlier comment, if you have some reason to believe that you're likely to be targeted for some other kind of violent home invasion, it might make sense to keep a gun around--especially if you live far away from the nearest source of help. But if you live in the city where the cops can be at your door in less time than it takes to open your gun locker, load your gun, and confront the burglar, it just seems silly to bother with all the risk and responsibility and hard work that you'd need to take on in order to use the gun effectively.

Lindsay Beyerstein,

But if you live in the city where the cops can be at your door in less time than it takes to open your gun locker, load your gun, and confront the burglar, it just seems silly to bother with all the risk and responsibility and hard work that you'd need to take on in order to use the gun effectively.

But a shotgun with a trigger lock and loaded with rock salt-filled shells would neither need to be stored in a gun locker nor would necessitate hard work to use effectively. And would not put family, friends or intruders at risk of death. yet, the burglar would not know what was in the shotgun shells.

I Was Strapped With Gats
When You Was Cuddling The Cabbage Patch

Straight outta Starbucks...

Dude has balls.

At least, until he sticks his new handgun into his waistband while hunting squirrels indoors.

There may be something else to be said for a public that is to some degree armed. Over the last century, most murder was committed by governments upon their own unarmed people. At the rate Americans kill each other with guns, we won't match in a thousand years what the Soviet authorities did to their own people in a decade.

I know this may be thought of as tinfoil hat territory, but power tends, in the long run, to be constrained by what it can do, not what it ought to do, and unarmed populaces are pretty regularly slaughtered: USSR, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Rwanda--just to name a few over a pretty brief span of time. I wouldn't rule out the idea that over the long run there may be some measure of security to be found in possessing the ability not to go quietly.

You know, if I had to picture someone who would buy a gun and shoot himself or someone else accidently, it would look exactly like Matt Yglesias.

This seems to me one of the monumentally stupid non-issues (as in "an issue that shouldn't be an issue").

It ought to be possible to have in place a regime under which:

A) Responsible, law-abiding citizens like Matt can purchase guns within a regulated system; and,

B) It's very difficult and expensive to obtain a gun outside the system (i.e, on the black market).

It's true, criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms, but if "B" above were the case, not as many criminals (and irresponsible or underage citizens) would have them. Under such a scenario, although violent crime in general wouldn't necessarily drop, homicides probably would. At least some of the statistics I've seen strongly suggest the US isn't all that much more violent than other rich countries -- it's just that American violence tends more often to be lethal.

In short, the incredible ease with which Americans are able to obtain firearms means an American criminal (just like an American non-criminal) is much more likely than his British or Canadian counterpart to possess a gun. And so the acts of violence he commits are more likely to be lethal. And so Americans are more likely to be murdered. Yippeee! What a great policy!

You think that knife fight girl won't dare to cop your swag if you're packing?!

You've got another think coming, writer boy.

Something about the way you talk about owning a gun makes you sound like a fruitcake. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. Handguns are for criminals anyway.

This comes from a NYCer:

I can't disagree with you more vehemently.

But if you live in the city where the cops can be at your door in less time than it takes to open your gun locker, load your gun, and confront the burglar, it just seems silly to bother with all the risk and responsibility and hard work that you'd need to take on in order to use the gun effectively.

Keeping a gun you're going use for self defense unloaded in a cabinet is a bit ridiculous. Much better off with it loaded, stored in something like this.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/standard-item.jsp?_DARGS=/cabelas/en/common/catalog/item-link.jsp_A&_DAV=MainCatcat602007-cat20799_TGP&id=0005562220659a&navCount=2&podId=0005562

Handguns are for criminals anyway.

You know how a lot of right wingers sound when they blather on about sex ed, evolution, global warming, and such? And you're thinking "would it fucking kill this person to educate themself a bit before sounding off?"

Over the last century, most murder was committed by governments upon their own unarmed people.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrrany in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrrany in government."

So when the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore, Gore should have encouraged us to start an armed insurrection?

If not then, then when?

So when the Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore, Gore should have encouraged us to start an armed insurrection?

The option was available.

I dunno, I feel like everyone should own at least one weapon they can be proud of. It's the human heritage. Other species have claws or super-speed, we have opposable thumbs and cleverness. Which doesn't sound like much up against claws, but in practice it comes out as a handheld machine that spits tiny concentrations of death with the force of a sledgehammer. And that's something to take pride in.

Hey, and just in time too:

----

Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: March 9, 2007

Violent crime rose by double-digit percentages in cities across the country over the last two years, reversing the declines of the mid-to-late 1990s, according to a new report by a prominent national law enforcement association....

Local police departments blame several factors: the spread of methamphetamine use in some Midwestern and Western cities, gangs, high poverty and a record number of people being released from prison. But the biggest theme, they say, is easy access to guns and a willingness, even an eagerness, to settle disputes with them, particularly among young people.

---

Hope to see you doing your part, Matthew. At least once, anyway, and after that I'll watch the other guy doing his part.

Other species have claws or super-speed, we have opposable thumbs and cleverness. Which doesn't sound like much up against claws, but in practice it comes out as a handheld machine that spits tiny concentrations of death with the force of a sledgehammer. And that's something to take pride in.

Wow, Senescent, you're right: THAT's the reason I'm so proud not to be a badger.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrrany in government." - Thomas Jefferson

TJ died in 1826 and never saw the invention of the machine gun, much less the tank, the F-16, the cruise missile or the atomic bomb. How many people here, dead founding fathers excepted, actually think that a modern government such as that of the United States could be successfully overthrown with handguns? Note the existence of dictators who never managed to get overthrown by their various gun-toting citizens.

We're truly in 'silly season' here. I've lived in NYC for nearly 40 years and in all that time (including two muggings) a gun would have done nothing but make things infinitely worse. (Especially if, in the muggings, the perps had gotten the gun away from me--always a scary but very real possibility!) Mind you, I have a couple of handguns, and a permit for them, and they're used only for target shooting, so to Matt I say, go ahead and get it out of your system! But if you do, and have the remotest notion of using them on a human being, do yourself a favor and get some combat pistol training, AND read Massad Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme," which will acquaint you with the legal, emotional and moral pitfalls (not to mention the tunnel vision, loss of fine motor control, and adrenaline loading) that await anyone who uses a gun on another human being, burlgar or not.

Post-Katrina New Orleans...maybe. But trigger-locked shotguns loaded with rocksalt in a residence? Somebody's starring in their own superhero fantasy there. A gun ain't a Gameboy.

How many people here, dead founding fathers excepted, actually think that a modern government such as that of the United States could be successfully overthrown with handguns?

How well are the tanks, cruise missles, and F-16s working in Iraq? It's now been some 1500 odd days since their mission was accomplished. Tyranny is defeated by insurgency and insurgencies are fought with small arms.

Matt -

You have my empathy in many respects. I'm part of the libertarian wing of the Democrats, and my conviction that constitutional rights must win out over vague premonitions of greater harm has been confirmed a thousand times over in the past few years.

And I'm enough of a control freak to think that a lot of the dangers of gun ownership are due to the preponderance of gun owners being idiots. I'll never be pushing gun control laws.

But -- on a personal note, I agree with those people drawing your attention to the squirrel story. And the swinging knife bit. While you're the only blogger I read who sounds like he was probably "the fun guy" in college (josh marshall may have said some pretty funny things while stoned, but did he ever wake up in a dumpster? i think not. you, i can't be sure), being "the fun guy" means you probably shouldn't own a gun. Why? The squirrel, the knife, &c.

And then think - what is the probability of my being faced with a situation where this is actually useful. I live in the DC area and I know people who've been mugged, but they've all been while walking on the street. Are you going to start packing on the Metro?

We're just looking out for you, man.

Tyranny is defeated by insurgency and insurgencies are fought with small arms.

The US in Iraq is not "tyranny". In any case, US citizens do not have the right to own improvised explosive devices.

Many, many crimes are prevented by would-be victims brandishing firearms without firing them.

And many, many meteor strikes are prevented by me waving my fingers in the air dramatically over my head. Whoa! Just prevented another one.

How well are the tanks, cruise missles, and F-16s working in Iraq?

Apples and oranges. Iraq is a nationalist insurgency fighting a foreign occupier, and the record for nationalist insurgencies versus foreign occupiers over the last hundred years has been pretty good. But the NRA "guns versus tyranny" argument has always involved a domestic insurgency overthrowing its own government, and the record for these is terrible. In an Iraq-like scenario, the insurgency just has to erode support for the occupation by demonstrating that its costs outweigh its benefits. But a domestic insurgency would be up against a government fighting for its own survival and with no incentive to quit or meaningfully hold back. Again, if you think the handgun you bought at the gun show is a meaningful defense against state tyranny, you're deluding yourself.

This issue is pertinent in light of recent events involving my family.

As they were driving back home, they nearly had a scrape with this car that was driving recklessly trying to pass them. This pissed my dad off so when the car was passing them by, my dad shot them the finger.

Bad Move.

After my Dad flips the guy the bird as their passing by, the car pulls over on the shoulder and slows down and waits for my parents to pass. As they do the car begins following them. They end up going through a yellow-to-red light sequence "much later than we should" in my Mom's words and the car comes right behind them through the red light. They were being followed.

The car pulls up somewhat along side them and rams them from the side, trying to spin their car out. It almost does but my dad regains control. Both of my parents are panicing.

They pull up to the house and my Dad gets out while my Mom stays in the locked car. 3 tough looking young guys get out of the other car. One stays inside.

I'm inside the house & hear the commotion outside, by the time I look out the window my 58 year old Dad is on the ground after being punched, and 3 of these guys are punching & kicking him (and having a good time while doing it). I run to my parent's room and get my father's 22. and run outside brandishing it at these guys at which point they get spooked & hightail it back to the car and take off. The cops are called (by us & a neighbor) report is filed, my dad is banged up, my mom is hysterical but otherwise everything is ok.

I am not a gun person, never gone to a shooting range or even fired a gun. Nor for that matter are my nice suburbanite parents. The "Gun Culture",(and there is no other way to frame it) perplexes me, I find hunting incredibly distasteful. I loathe the NRA and the way it hyperventilates at virtually any common sense gun regulation/restriction. When I look at the forum for "Guns & Ammo" magazine and see threads like "Which Gun is closest to you right now" I feel as if I live an entirely different country than such people.

But after reading the comments here, I've never been more glad that Gun control is as politically a dead issue as it is.

But the NRA "guns versus tyranny" argument

Was Thomas Jefferson in the NRA? I don't understand why an "agnostic" would be so hostile as to accuse me of attending gun shows. It seems to me that you are arguing in bad faith. You want to ignore the "dead founding fathers" and the Constitution as if they have no bearing on the issue, but self-defense is absolutely essential to preserving our inalienable rights. Whatever the record of an armed citizenry in overthrowing dictatorships, I guarantee you it's better than the record of an unarmed citizenry.

I've only had one personal experience with gun-like things during times of civil unrest. When I was reporting from New Orleans after Katrina, one of my colleagues got the bright idea to buy the kind of flare gun that looks, upon very casual inspection, like a real gun. I freaked out at him and made him put it away because I felt it was the most useless and potentially dangerous toy I'd ever seen. He was like, "But we could lay down suppressive fire." And I rolled my eyes, and the subject didn't arise again until a couple of days later when one of our friends from the NAACP was borrowing our rental car in Baton Rouge and a cop pulled him over for some random reason and saw the faux-gun when our friend looked in the glvoe compartment for documents. The poor guy had no idea was there. He came back screaming obscenities at us about how that stupid thing had nearly gotten him arrested or killed, and I totally believed him. Cops were extremely edgy at that point. I have no idea what would have happened if it had been a real gun. This isn't a parable about gun safety, or the utility of real guns in a time of civil upheaval. I'm just saying that for all the talk about how guns can be used to preserve freedom, guns can much more easily be used by authorities as a pretext to harass or kill citizens (that's regardless of whether they're licensed or even real, so it's not a gun law issue).

I lived for quite some time in Durham. Being in a dangerous part of a dangerous city doesn't bother me much. I'm pretty big, a guy, and poor, so I've got nothing anybody wants, so I never felt too much danger walking around at night. And of course I wasn't selling any drugs, and that seems to be the main demographic in Durham for getting shot. But I grew up around guns and sometimes thought about them and self-defense and such in general, walking around the town. I carry a pocketknife, but never had to use it. Anyway, after lots of walking and pondering, I came to the conclusion that if I found myself in situations where self-defense were a big problem, I'd probably get a taser, or stun gun, and some pepper spray. The reason is simple. The sketchy situations where you might be inclined to pull a gun can evolve really fast and before you know it maybe you've shot somebody. Maybe you were justified, maybe you weren't. If you weren't, there could be hell to pay. You might see some prison time. Whereas if the situation gets sketchy and you shock someone helpless and take off, whether you were right or wrong, the cops are much less likely to hunt you down than if you left a corpse behind. And anyway, under stress it's a lot easier to hit someone with pepper spray than a handgun.

My best advice though for sketchy places is, take your driver's license and credit cards out of your wallet and put them in your sock. Losing some cash is a lot less of a headache than losing those things.

Was Thomas Jefferson in the NRA?

No, but his opinions are pretty much irrelevant on the issue at hand.

I don't understand why an "agnostic" would be so hostile as to accuse me of attending gun shows. It seems to me that you are arguing in bad faith.

Where did I accuse you of attending gun shows? And how am I no longer agnostic on gun control? I think there might be valid uses for various firearms, including self-defense. One of those valid uses, however, is not "defense against tyranny," because in any actual fight between you and the government the government is going to win.

You want to ignore the "dead founding fathers" and the Constitution as if they have no bearing on the issue, but self-defense is absolutely essential to preserving our inalienable rights.

Again, I wasn't arguing against "self-defense" - nor did the Jefferson quote (nor anything Matt posted, for that matter) have anything to do with self-defense, either. "Defense against tyranny" is a pretty tall order, and if you're relying on guns to do the job - as opposed to, say, freedom of speech, assembly, privacy, religion, the press, and a supermajority of the population that supports all of these - you're more or less shit out of luck.

Whatever the record of an armed citizenry in overthrowing dictatorships, I guarantee you it's better than the record of an unarmed citizenry.

Not for most of the last century.

And anyway, under stress it's a lot easier to hit someone with pepper spray than a handgun.

A few things to keep in mind with regard to pepper spray. Yeah, easier to hit, but effective target is much smaller. A bullet to the leg or gut might not be fatal, but can still inflict a lot of damage. Pepper spray, not so much. Also, it's a tool to slow someone down so you can get away. You should not count on it to incapacitate someone. Good for outside, but not so hot for home defense. If you're holed up in your bedroom waiting for the cops to arrive, you've likely got limited or no escape routes, and letting loose with pepper spray in an enclosed space is likely going to make the situation rather unpleasant for you as well as your target.

It can be a good option, but there's some limitations.

Personally, I've had no more trouble with burglars or muggers since I got a little carved ebony gris-gris mojo from a voodoo sorcerer in Ouidah a few years back.

Laugh if you want, but surveys in West Africa show that some 50,000 cases of burglary, murder, and rape are prevented every year by home mojo owners using, or even threatening to use, their mojo's powers. And that's not even getting into all the attempted soul-eatings and bat-transmutations they foil.

Some, of course, would say that the fact that African mojo owners already believe their charms to be effective biases their reports of effectiveness. But certainly the same thing couldn't be true in the case of rational American gun owners.

I would estimate that 80% of the "pro" crowd either grew up in a rural area or currently live in one. For the "anti" group it is probably the same percentage in terms of urban living. Discussions and policies that make perfect sense to one group are completely alien to the other. If you were raised in rural America, you most likely see guns as a necessary tool. In urban America, guns are a weapons used during either the perpetration or prevention of a crime. I don't see how you ever reconcile this completely different viewpoints.

I leave Matt with one important firearm safety tip:
Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill

Geez Louise, don't know where to begin. Even if you hate guns and don't want to have one in your house, you're safer in a city that allows citizens to own guns for home protection than in one that does not. A burglar who's confident he won't find an armed resident is more likely to break in while someone's home. If he can't be sure the resident will be unarmed, he's going to wait for you to leave the house before he breaks in.

There's a reason that Britain twice the burglary rate than the US (and a far higher rate of burglaries with the resident there)-- they have strict gun control and most of the US does not.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981011/ai_n14194102

Lindsey's point about insurance is great and all, but the biggest fear people have about break ins isn't property damage-- its of being raped or killed. Its nice to think that someone breaking in is a stalker or someone else who helpfully telegraphs his intentions, but you can't bank on that. There's nothing like the sound of a shotgun chambering a shell to let an intruder know, you really are, for lack of a better phrase, locked and loaded.

Oh and the person who suggest mace and 'self-defense' training is on Qualudes. The idea of using mace is you stun him long enough so you can run away. If you're alone in your house, you ain't running anywhere. If you start brawling with a criminal, who's likely to have had his share of prison fights, even a strapping young lad like Matthew is going to get his ass kicked. As for women, well, real life isn't like a Jennifer Lopez movie. A few hours training at the pistol range will do you a hell of lot more good than years of Krav Maga lessons.

Personally, I've had no more trouble with burglars or muggers since I got a little carved ebony gris-gris mojo from a voodoo sorcerer in Ouidah a few years back.

Laugh if you want, but surveys in West Africa show that some 50,000 cases of burglary, murder, and rape are prevented every year by home mojo owners using, or even threatening to use, their mojo's powers. And that's not even getting into all the attempted soul-eatings and bat-transmutations they foil.

Some, of course, would say that the fact that African mojo owners already believe their charms to be effective biases their reports of effectiveness. But certainly the same thing couldn't be true in the case of rational American gun owners.

Cute. Except for the fact that the potential self-defense & deterrant effects of a lethal firearm (as opposed to voodoo trinkets) are obvious to everyone except maybe those straining to make a clever point and failing miserably.

Look, no one is begrudging you your own reactionary views on guns, own or not own one as you wish.

Personally, I've had no more trouble with burglars or muggers since I got a little carved ebony gris-gris mojo from a voodoo sorcerer in Ouidah a few years back.

Laugh if you want, but surveys in West Africa show that some 50,000 cases of burglary, murder, and rape are prevented every year by home mojo owners using, or even threatening to use, their mojo's powers. And that's not even getting into all the attempted soul-eatings and bat-transmutations they foil.

Some, of course, would say that the fact that African mojo owners already believe their charms to be effective biases their reports of effectiveness. But certainly the same thing couldn't be true in the case of rational American gun owners.

Cute. Except for the fact that the potential self-defense & deterrant effects of a lethal firearm (as opposed to voodoo trinkets) are obvious to everyone except maybe those straining to make a clever point and failing miserably.

Look, no one is begrudging you your own reactionary views on guns, own or not own one as you wish.

"And I'm enough of a control freak to think that a lot of the dangers of gun ownership are due to the preponderance of gun owners being idiots. I'll never be pushing gun control laws."

There are, what? 80 million gun owners in this country, conservatively estimated? And firearms deaths, (Most of which are either murders or suicides, neither attributable to idiocy.) run to a few tens of thousands. Deaths as a result of idiocy run into perhaps the hundreds every year. With 80 million people having deadly weapons.

I put it to you that the preponderance of gun owners can't, based on this evidence, be idiots. People who none the less assume most gun owners are idiots could, however, be bigots.

There's a reason that Britain twice the burglary rate than the US (and a far higher rate of burglaries with the resident there)-- they have strict gun control and most of the US does not.

How interesting. And what is the reason why countries like Vietnam and Singapore, where private gun ownership is essentially nil, have such low burglary rates? And what is the reason why South Africa, where private gun ownership is widespread, has such a high burglary rate? And what is the reason why the Netherlands, where gun ownership is as low as in Britain, has a lower burglary rate than the US? ("Burglary Victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: A Cross-National Comparative Test of Routine Activities and Lifestyle Theories", Andromachi Tseloni, Karin Wittebrood, Graham Farrell and Ken Pease. The British Journal of Criminology 44:66-91 (2004))

Look, no one is begrudging you your own reactionary views on guns, own or not own one as you wish.

Uh huh. Look, I'm not saying you HAVE to pull out a gun and point it at my forehead. I'm just saying I feel safer standing here with my gun pointed at your forehead. You claim that society would be safer if everyone weren't constantly pointing their guns at each others' foreheads, and utopian blah blah - whatever, you're entitled to your views. I happen to think that in the real world, we're safer with our guns all pointed at each others' foreheads all the time. But you go right ahead and stand there with no gun if you wish, that's your right.

I think with respect to guns and tyranny, the issue is not so much overthrowing dictators as raising the risk to the oppressors of attempting to carry out extreme tyranny by violence against the people.

The anticipated cost of attempting to violently oppress an armed population is a deterrent, and therein lies the value.

Again, I wasn't arguing against "self-defense" - nor did the Jefferson quote (nor anything Matt posted, for that matter) have anything to do with self-defense, either. "Defense against tyranny" is a pretty tall order, and if you're relying on guns to do the job - as opposed to, say, freedom of speech, assembly, privacy, religion, the press, and a supermajority of the population that supports all of these - you're more or less shit out of luck.

The Jefferson quote has everything to do with self-defense. He's talking about defending your God-given rights from being taken away by governments. A perfect example of this is modern Russia. How well are freedom of speech and freedom of the press working there? Try resisting something like the KGB with freedom of religion. Talk about shit out of luck. We as individuals cannot outsource protection of our rights to the very government that will naturally seek to take those rights away. As anon says so succinctly, the value is in the deterrence.

For the record, I'm not one who believes there should be no restrictions on firearms. There should be restrictions on gun ownership just as there are restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. However, I am someone who is thankful that there are organizations like the NRA and ACLU who will stand up against encroachments on my rights.

Oh, and I took offense when you said this

Again, if you think the handgun you bought at the gun show is a meaningful defense against state tyranny, you're deluding yourself.

I think with respect to guns and tyranny, the issue is not so much overthrowing dictators as raising the risk to the oppressors of attempting to carry out extreme tyranny by violence against the people.

But it doesn't raise the risk meaningfully, given that dictators have access to all the kinds of weapons we expect governments to have (bombs, tanks, planes, etc.), where private citizens typically don't, and nobody other than hardcore anarchists are suggesting they should have. The Kurds had no shortage of firearms in 1988, but it didn't stop Saddam from massacring them.

With over a hundred posts, almost everyone is arguing from a purely self-centered viewpoint-- will a gun help me, will it make me more safe? But of course, the strongest arguments for gun control aren't about what gun possesion does to you, but what the consequences are of having a society in which it is incredibly easy to obtain a hangun. When you argue in favor of gun possesion, you are, however unintentionally, helping the criminals get their guns. While I'm sure you are will be just as responsible as you say you are, you are making it easier for irresponsible gun owners to get the weapon that will later shoot their children in their face. And, yes, you are facilitating the people who put on almost totally unregulated gun shows, which is where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (legally) purchased most of the arms used in the Columbine massacre. Your Dirty Harry fantasies are fine, but I insist that you recognize the costs of your desire to feel powerful and cool.

MY's blog is, I think, part of the large section of current liberalism that insists that liberal "self-righteousness" is the worst offense in the world; that the liberal social movement has to be pursued without moral indignation. I think that neo-liberal idea-- we're leftists, but we're not peacenik hippies-- has contributed as much as anything to the loss of traction in gun control legislation. But that desire to avoid being self-righteous obscures a simple fact, that the incredible prevalance of guns in America has had enormous costs for our country, that those costs are entirely concrete and tangible and terrible, and (by the way) that those costs are often born by people who don't own guns or want anything to do with them. You all are congratulating the Democrats on abandoning the gun-control agenda, but just wait. It will only take another high-profile massacre performed with legally owned guns to return the issue to the front of our nations attention.

It's also worth pointing out that, separate from ideologies, when you defend the gun rights lobby, you are defending one of the most odious and politically corrosive forces in our country. The NRA is a dispicable organization; it's engaged in some of the worst intimidation and dirty tactics in American political history. And, by the way, since so many of you are so eager to preface your support for gun-loving by announcing your otherwise progressive politics, the NRA supports a noxious politics of social conservatism. If you want those bed-fellows, you are all welcome to them.

There's a reason that Britain twice the burglary rate than the US (and a far higher rate of burglaries with the resident there)-- they have strict gun control and most of the US does not.

Alternatively, there are other reasons (population density, wealth distribution, etc.). It's a bit harder to rob someone's house in exurban sprawl. And let's just say that most American pronouncements about the hellish nature of British crime post-Dunblane are based upon patent ignorance.

I'm still wondering when MY, along with all the gun-totin' Congresscritters from the rural south and west, are shipping out to the hood. Because, following Freddie, I think there's a huge amount of personal vanity involved in this particular case on behalf of the out-of-towners who live in Political Washington and treat DC as their personal fiefdom.

Picking up on Brett's narrow response, the vast majority of gun owners are not idiots. But 100% of those killed by guns are dead.

If my cousin wasn't allowed to have a hand gun in the house he probably wouldn't have committed suicide so rashly, spontaneously and painlessly. Dumb bastard.

i don't mean to be a wanker, but i hope you get shot. better yet, i hope you wake up in the middle of the night, hear a noise, grab your gun, and accidentally shoot your roommate. insofar as the text of the constitution is still relevant, sure, gun control bad! but honestly, wake the fuck up. just don't kill anyone before you manage to put in your contacts.

Mattsteinglass,

You're kidding right? Singapore is an authoritarian country (chewing gum is outlawed, vandals are publicly caned). While Vietnam, as you may recall from the movies, is the war where we lost to the Communists. Repeal civil liberties and yes the crime rate goes down.

As for South Africa, I believe you have cause and effect backwards, gun ownership is extremely common because the crime rate is so absurdly high. How high? Drivers were buying flame throwers for their cars to deter carjackings. The S.A. has since banned it, but check out the video for this thing-- badass. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/

As for The Netherlands versus US crime rate, it's debatable which is higher. The Dutch Justice Ministry has published a crime victims survey showing higher burglary rates in the Netherlands than in the US.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/23/ncrim123.xml

You're comparing urban and rural areas again. UK is considerably more urban than the US. All cross-country comparisons are useless without taking that into account.
It does seem like there is probably a vicious cycle of more liberal gun laws leading to more dangerous violent crime leading to more gun ownership. Tough one to fix.

So, I'm not suggesting MY start policing his comments or anything -- I generally like the conversation here without him doing that -- but if some jackass came to my blog and said, "I hope you get shot," he certainly wouldn't be welcome back.

And man, the person on this thread who said guns out the fundamentalism and irrationalism in liberals is sure being proven right. I think Matt Steinglass wins, despite kingspawn's valiant attempt.

Yes, claiming that brandishing a gun prevented a rape, assault or burglary is just like saying waving your hands prevented a meteor shower. Because that meteor was aimed straight at your head before you started waving your hands, right?

Anyway, somebody posted the link earlier to the stats on the crimes prevented annually by guns, so I won't bother doing it again. Suffice to say that it far exceeds the number of accidental shootings.

And Linsdey said: "I'm just saying that for all the talk about how guns can be used to preserve freedom, guns can much more easily be used by authorities as a pretext to harass or kill citizens (that's regardless of whether they're licensed or even real, so it's not a gun law issue)."

This makes me very glad the NRA is out there. I mean, really, the proper response here is, "then fuck the authorities." No, don't start shooting at them, but I hope our court system is very unforgiving toward cops who use our right to own a weapon "as a pretext to harass or kill citizens." Again, fuck them.

The bottom line of the anti-gun argument: it makes it too easy to kill.

Timmy McVeigh got more people than any mass killer ever will. And he was a war hero, so let's not hear about how a little military training would make you responsible enough to be eligible to own guns.

I'm a decent shot but I can't imagine being able to kill more than 15 people with a gun, if I got lucky. I can easily imagine killing 100+ with a can of gasoline and a few well placed chains and padlocks.

Murder is a social problem. Not a technological one. It could never be solved with technological regulation which is all gun control is.

See also.

In 2004 there were approximately 10,100 homicides and 16,500 suicides related to firearmes. In the same year there were almost 45,000 motor vehicle related deaths.

Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally. Motor vehicles are involved in 39% of all accidental deaths.
A US resident is 3.75 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident than they are to be murdered with a firearm.

I was happy to read this. I've always considered banning guns totally stupid - in the same category as banning drugs. In fact, the bans are structured the same way and have the same results: they bear disproportionately on the poor, blacks and hispanics, and they are inherently antithetical to the whole system of rights. Guns are easy to manufacture and to sell on the black market - just as marijuana, cocaine and the opiates are - and sweeps of guns are almost always directed not according to the logic of who has them, but according to the class logic of who is considered dangerous. In NYC, of course, the gun laws were never used to perform sweeps of, say, the West side, but rather to harrass people in the Bronx and Queens.

The hypocrisy cuts, of course, in two ways. The NRA might want to protect your home revolver, but they are all about arresting you for your home stash of weed, or your crack or your heroin. Both impulses are stupid. Regulation is fine; banning simply puts regulatory power in the hands of the black market.

Commenter gswift hits the ten-ring: gun control is to liberals what drug control is to conservatives. The knowledge displayed here of this well-developed subject doesn't rise very high. There's a Justice Department memorandum from August 2004 (105 pages including notes) on the question "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right". The next lines give their answer: "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias." So much for the legal foundation. Restrictions, presumably unconsitutional, were imposed starting in the late 19th Century, first in large cities, apparently out of fear of immigrants (such as Italians) and the rest of the underclass, and spread from there. Sound familiar? There's still a snotty kind of complacency and we-happy-fewism among the Antis. Don't like guns? Leave them alone. Especially mine.

There's a Justice Department memorandum from August 2004...

And it supports the individual right model? No shit, Sherlock. That would be the same Justice Department whose upper echelons green-lighted torture, warrantless surveillance, the jurisdictional haven of Guantanamo, etc. Not that they are all equal, but the Justice Department is not an unbiased arbiter here, and to imply otherwise suggests that you think we were born yesterday.

We quietly sit by as, virtually every day in every metropolitan area, 14 and 15 and 16 year olds gun each other down. Let's be glad no one talks about it. It'd be insane to think that's a problem.

There's a Justice Department memorandum from August 2004...

The law in the United States is ultimately interpreted by the courts, not the Justice Department. Until the recent DC ruling, the courts had consistently rejected the claim that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own guns.

Yes, claiming that brandishing a gun prevented a rape, assault or burglary is just like saying waving your hands prevented a meteor shower. Because that meteor was aimed straight at your head before you started waving your hands, right?

There are two classes of claims that guns have "prevented" various crimes. One class are statistical claims, such the one that results in the claim that there would have been 450,000 more burglaries in the US without guns. These claims do not involve anything aimed straight at anyone's heads; they are speculation about things that did not take place, and what the reason is why they did not take place.

The other class are self-reports of alleged incidents. I have read the studies which claim to support all these incidents in which guns "stopped" or "deterred" crimes; they are typically based on several hundred or thousand interviews, which is a perfectly legit number for sociological research, and then extrapolated across the population. The problem with these studies is that you're getting a self-report of an alleged incident in which the self-reported victim is making a claim about the intentions of their antagonist. The self-reported victim says they encountered an antagonist and prevented a crime. And obviously people who report having done so are almost by definition people who believe in the efficacy of using guns to prevent crimes. In some of these reports there is objective evidence that an attempted crime took place, but in most, there's none; and it is rarely possible to disentangle whether or not the presence of a firearm, specifically, made a difference. It's rather like asking surgeons how often their surgery has enhanced a patient's quality of life. Refer for instance to DRR's certainly harrowing story: what did his brandishing of the gun accomplish? Was a crime prevented?

Finally, let's just point this out: Gun ownership rates on the Upper East Side of Manhattan vs. gun ownership rates in the South Bronx. Violent crime and burglary rates on the Upper East Side of Manhattan vs. said rates in the South Bronx. "If owning guns is illegal, only criminals will own guns": who cares, since criminals who own guns are so much more likely to be robbed or killed than non-criminals who don't? If owning guns is such a great deterrent to being the victim of a violent crime, why do gun-owning criminals get robbed and murdered all the time?

"If owning guns is such a great deterrent to being the victim of a violent crime, why do gun-owning criminals get robbed and murdered all the time?"

Could it be because they're criminals, not because they're gun owners? Robbing and assaulting and raping and murdering people is dangerous work.

"Refer for instance to DRR's certainly harrowing story: what did his brandishing of the gun accomplish? Was a crime prevented?"

Are you really that dense? He saved his dad from serious injury, at the least.

As for the guns stopping tyranny argument,

Has anyone brought up the relevant George Orwell essay yet? It says pretty much all you need to hear.

Again-- only consideration of the personal (guns help me) and no consideration for the societal (my access to guns is part of a system that hurts many, many others.)

Considering a "regular" army as being one that is uniformly supplied, "well-regulated" might be seen to mean "well supplied" in which case the 2nd Amendment makes plain sense. Was it Yamamoto who explained that plans to attack the US mainland were beyond consideration because "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass"... did I get that right?

I've noticed in this most excellent discussion that, aside from someone noting that a shotgun is the best choice for home defense (got that right) guns are being defined as handguns. According to some experts handguns are a weapon of last resort when the attacker has gotten too close to get a rifle (or shotgun) barrel between you and them. Or as someone who I won't bother to look up the citation on said, "handguns are only good for fighting your way back to your rifle which you should have never set down in the first place" -- the context of the quote was bear hunting as I recall.

As for those AKs, M-29s, and such, Chuck Taylor (and he should know) has maintained that their primary application is "room entry and stopping vehicles" and, I think, were designed to create high volume suppressive fire in infantry situations while waiting for close air support.

If you limit "gun" to "rifle" instead of "handgun" I suspect that a whole different picture will emerge with respect to safety, sanity, and statistics. And, after all anyway, you will have to drop those zombies at least a 100 yards away or they could splatter on you and infect you... right??

I'm clocking back in 'cause now you folks have gotten me thinking about it (LOL).

Am I right in thinking that the application of the handgun in the role of close quarter back-up that I mentioned a recent development first made of practical functionality with the British service revolver and perfected with the US's 45 ACP (in round figures, that is). And that handguns evolutionary engine was for use in personal duels? ...from cased flintlocks to the Wild West's Equalizers? ...further that the military solution to close quarter back-up from forever up past the American Civil War was a sword short enough to be hung on a belt?

If an argument that handguns are primarily a weapon of the personal duel (like raipers) then that could form them in a specific different class of weapons than arms as considered terms of militia, and exempt from the protection of the Constitution. I would have to weight in with the pro-gun people to the point of having elsewhere suggested arming the poor as a solution to the welfare problem; but the havoc caused by concealable firearms can't be denied.

I remember the first time I saw a man strolling down the well populated street of an American Southwestern tourist town with his eight year old son's hand in his and a military Uzi over his shoulder. I thought: there is a man to be shown respect; which is not such a bad thing to think of someone.

[P.S., sgt. york is a reference to a fellow who demonstrated the military potential of the Springfield '04 -- even though he was using an American Enfield at the time.]

by the way, matt, you can usually go to a range and rent guns. i've done this a few times in san francisco. you don't need training or anything.

i see trouble down that road.

of course you need training. the law may not require it, but you're an idiot if you don't take a shooting class along w/weapons safety.

i am not in favor of taking away people's guns. but i am also not in favor of idiots owning them. and if you don't steep yourself in all available information about the necessities, saftey aspects, and all-around gravity of your purchase, you are an idiot.

First, I have not taken a lot of time to read every post here, but I have read a good deal of them. I own two handguns which I keep locked in a safe with trigger locks on each of them. I use them for target practice which I thoroughly enjoy. I have no illusion that I will ever successfully use them for self defense, let alone need to.

I will point out, though, that if I lived in an area where I might need to use a firearm in my own home, I would educate myself on how to do it properly (the NRA offers a course on how to use a handgun for self defense in your home).

I have no problem with citizens owning guns. I don't believe that everyone SHOULD own one, but if you've demonstrated that you're responsible enough, go ahead. I once stumbled upon a pro-gun website that said something like: "Don't own a gun because you're afraid of your fellow man. Own one because you're a proud citizen of a nation where you can."

One more thing about Sgt. York:

The account of Sgt. York's exploits that I read stated that the Germans knew the magazine capacity of the Enfield rifle, so they sent groups of six men to his position.

The Enfield features one of the fastest bolt-actions ever made and York was, by all accounts, a phenomenal marksman. He used the fast bolt to great advantage but kept his 1911 pistol draped on the pinkie of his right hand. The first 5 Germans were stopped by the rifle and the 6th was dispatched with the .45. I think this is a good example of the role of the pistol in combat. By the way, the Gary Cooper movie account features York using a Luger.

Are you really that dense? He saved his dad from serious injury, at the least.

Are you really that dense? His father had been severely beaten by 3 men by the time he showed up with the gun. Would they have continued? Would they have continued if he had simply showed up, without the gun? Would they have continued if he had showed up with a phone on which he had just told the police the address at which the assault was in progress? What would have happened if one of them had drawn a gun and DRR was forced to acknowledge that his own was not loaded? What was the role of the gun? You don't know. I don't know. He doesn't know.

mattsteinglass, you're obviously religious about it, and no one could ever convince you. That's fine with me. I'm not for easy access to guns. I'm all for intensive background checks, and I would prefer that owners have to pass a rigorous training course. I don't think assault weapons or cheap handguns should be readily available. People like you are a nice balance to the nuts who want machine guns available at 7-11s. Which is not to say that I find your position (or what I take to be your position based on your posts) crazy, I just don't agree with it.

Edo,

"But a shotgun with a trigger lock and loaded with rock salt-filled shells would neither need to be stored in a gun locker nor would necessitate hard work to use effectively. And would not put family, friends or intruders at risk of death. yet, the burglar would not know what was in the shotgun shells."

With all due respect, you've been watching too many movies. You may as well use blanks instead of rock salt. It's a terrible self-defense load.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm

The 2nd Amendment does not confer a right. It limits the power of the government to abridge rights, as does so much of the rest of the Constitution. Until you understand this the Constitution can be very confusing.

The recent court ruling highlights the history of the 2nd Amendment quite well, and includes detailed textual, historical, and logical analyses of the "militia" subordinate clause, the basis of the individuality of the rights enumerated in the 2nd (and in the rest of the Constitution), and finally the idea of individual rights to self defense. The majority ruling also shreds the dissent. I suggest that anyone posting here who has not read it yet go and do so. It makes most comments here look very uninformed. If after reading it, there is some disagreement, come back and try again.

I don't understand you Americans. I live in Europe and we have gun controls and bans everywhere, this doesn't stop people to shoot other people, it not even lowers criminal rates. Also, what prevents an angry family member to use a knife instead of a gun, the other person is not really less dead that way ^^

As a member of the NRA for the last 14 years, I am going to call BS on some posters:

Posted by: mds: What is the latest NRA line on the "well-regulated militia" clause of the amendment in question? Last I heard, it was apparently just to make it fit the parchment margins better.

This is of course hyperbole, but it is still BS. The NRA and its members actually are interested in and knowledgeable about guns, the history of guns and the history of the Second Amendment, unlike you.

Posted by: Freddie: ...the NRA supports a noxious politics of social conservatism. If you want those bed-fellows, you are all welcome to them.

Rubbish.

Posted by: roger: The NRA might want to protect your home revolver, but they are all about arresting you for your home stash of weed, or your crack or your heroin.

Also rubbish. The NRA is a single issue organization. It takes positions on only gun rights, and some other narrow issues such as penalties for felons possessing guns, and on its free speech rights in political campaigns.

There are 3 million members, and certain many of them are conservative, but in the fourteen years I have been a member, I have not seen the NRA as an evil conservative organization.

The gun issue is one where I see people just make up stuff, and these posts are no exception. I wonder how much of your other posts are based upon actual knowledge or just fabrication.

"I have no illusion that I will ever successfully use them for self defense, let alone need to"

Wow, talk about delusio