Cost of 2nd Amendment Freedoms

[caseymoz]

I'm not saying that there isn't a right to keep and bear arms, I am pointing out that freedom carries costs, and depending on how people choose to practice it, greater costs. I've been in an argument on the General Discussion Board about gun rights in the wake of the recent assassination attempt on Rep. Gifford. I said the attack wouldn't have been possible without a handgun, or at least, an attempt wouldn't have caused so many to be wounded. One of the people pointed out, and I don't know if this is true, that Gifford was actually carrying herself but didn't have a chance to draw.

They say that there are two kinds of people in a gunfight, those who knew there would be a gunfight, and those didn't. The latter almost always loses. It just happens too fast, and how about if she had been able to draw, nervously, in a crowd firing back wild? Or if anyone else had.

So, this demonstrates that carrying guns for general self-defense, out of paranoia when there's no specific threat present is of limited or no good.

Now, people have a right to keep and bear arms, and they have a right to defend themselves, but 2nd Amendment proponents are not extremely truthful about the consequences of this. Whatever its drawbacks, gun control does have some advantages based on facts.


Here's what I also think further gun control would do, contingent on good enforcement:

1) It will cut down on the number of assaults that result in homicides, simply because compared, say, to a wound from a knife assault, a wound from a firearm is five times more fatal, and a wound to a vital organ from a firearm is many times more fatal than that with a knife. Those are the statistics say.

2) It will would cut down drastically on the number of impulsive homicides resulting from a "bad moment" with a gun, since many gun homicides are not premeditated at all but result from bad decision over a split second. That decision takes place much too quickly and easily with a gun. With a knife you have to work at it, same with a car. Death isn't so push-button.

3) It would reduce mass deaths from school and public shootings. Nobody is going to kill thirty people in a few minutes without a firearm, or bomb.

4) It would reduce the number of gun accidents, particularly for children.

5) It would prevent at least some school shootings and workplace rampages.

6) It would prevent assassination like this, and those that result in mass deaths.


Here's what I know it won't do:

1) Cut down on the overall crime rate, violent crime or the assault rate. It would simply make them far less deadly;

2) Without extremely good enforcement, it won't suppress the number of illegal arms;

3) Get rid of guns. Civilians own about 200 million guns in the US. You're not going to confiscate that many weapons, you're not going to be able to try.


The last one makes any effective gun control a fantasy for our lifetimes. However, if Loughner could not buy his weapon an a Sports Authority, would he have been able to buy such a good one? One so capable of taking down a dozen people? Would he have had the money for such a good weapon on the black market? I don't know if he paid this way, but they don't generally take credit cards there. Would he have had the contacts to get one?

I would like to make a final point though, the best armed societies are not exactly known for their freedoms. Take a look at the Congo for instance.