Comments on: Mandatory Gun Ownership? http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:04:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Cal Ulmann http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/#comment-6568 Cal Ulmann Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:10:40 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/#comment-6568 I agree. The government should not be directing citizens' activities in any manner. I agree. The government should not be directing citizens’ activities in any manner.

]]> By: Cliff Chism http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/#comment-6436 Cliff Chism Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:32:33 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/#comment-6436 Don't Ask...Don't Tell... Although we haven't heard that phrase in quite some time, it seems as though it's a reasonable plan. I would think that a person owning a firearm with no intent on using it, no matter the situation, would be at greater risk than a similarily armed civilian with every intention of safeguarding his family, home and property would be at a lesser risk. But, if a law were passed for mandatory gun ownership, with no methodology for monitoring of compliance and no penalties for non-conformance, then a criminal entering the jurisdiction of the ordinance would have to answer for himself the legendary Dirty Harry Question... "Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?". Likely, the criminal in question would take his business elsewhere. Of course, and I state this opinion without proof, if the laws of this sort were to prosper and become nationwide, the criminals would probably lower their standards and end up getting shot on a more regular basis, leading to an outcry from others to do away with "mandatory gun ownership" to protect the non-law-abiding citizens, and taking us right back where we started. Don’t Ask…Don’t Tell… Although we haven’t heard that phrase in quite some time, it seems as though it’s a reasonable plan. I would think that a person owning a firearm with no intent on using it, no matter the situation, would be at greater risk than a similarily armed civilian with every intention of safeguarding his family, home and property would be at a lesser risk.
But, if a law were passed for mandatory gun ownership, with no methodology for monitoring of compliance and no penalties for non-conformance, then a criminal entering the jurisdiction of the ordinance would have to answer for himself the legendary Dirty Harry Question… “Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”. Likely, the criminal in question would take his business elsewhere.
Of course, and I state this opinion without proof, if the laws of this sort were to prosper and become nationwide, the criminals would probably lower their standards and end up getting shot on a more regular basis, leading to an outcry from others to do away with “mandatory gun ownership” to protect the non-law-abiding citizens, and taking us right back where we started.

]]> By: Brad Warbiany http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/#comment-6356 Brad Warbiany Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:53:17 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/15/mandatory-gun-ownership/#comment-6356 Like you, I'm not really in favor of mandatory anything, even if it's something like gun ownership, which I support. Particularly when it's something that's basically unenforceable. I live in Marietta, GA, which is the town right next to Kennesaw. My boss actually used to live in Kennesaw, without owning a firearm. Nobody can really know whether or not you own a gun there, unless they went way beyond what residents would support and checked. But, being a non-gun-owner, he benefited from the law, because potential criminals didn't know he didn't own a gun. So it's probably fairly well established that laws which restrict gun ownership increase crime, and that laws which mandate gun ownership reduce crime. It's the enforcement of the mandate that really bothers me, though. Kennesaw never really tried to "enforce" it, they just created that law as a deterrent to criminals, which worked well. I'm just wondering what would have happened if they did try to enforce it. Like you, I’m not really in favor of mandatory anything, even if it’s something like gun ownership, which I support. Particularly when it’s something that’s basically unenforceable.

I live in Marietta, GA, which is the town right next to Kennesaw. My boss actually used to live in Kennesaw, without owning a firearm. Nobody can really know whether or not you own a gun there, unless they went way beyond what residents would support and checked. But, being a non-gun-owner, he benefited from the law, because potential criminals didn’t know he didn’t own a gun.

So it’s probably fairly well established that laws which restrict gun ownership increase crime, and that laws which mandate gun ownership reduce crime. It’s the enforcement of the mandate that really bothers me, though. Kennesaw never really tried to “enforce” it, they just created that law as a deterrent to criminals, which worked well. I’m just wondering what would have happened if they did try to enforce it.

]]>