Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Life may not be exactly pleasant, but it is at least not dull. Heave yourself into Hell today, and you may miss, tomorrow or next day, another Scopes trial, or another War to End War, or perchance a rich and buxom widow with all her first husband's clothes. There are always more Hardings hatching. I advocate hanging on as long as possible.”     H. L. Mencken

March 24, 2007

Defaming gun owners

by Jason Pye

“This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our police will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.” – Adolf Hitler, who instituted the first German gun laws just before Kristallnacht.

I’m not the biggest fan of Michelle Malkin, but she has a column in the Washington Times about the prejudice against gun owners:

Two weeks ago, the Roanoke (Va.) Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper’s community under the sanctimonious guise of “Sunshine Week.” The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: “I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It’s nobody’s business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone’s business.”

The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Mr. Trejbal admitted he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate — but published it anyway: “As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all [emphasis added], online at www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun.”

After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database. Mr. Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: “Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it’s still a public record.” Let’s review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals — and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.

Law abiding gun owners compared get compared to sexual predators. These are law abiding citizens exercising their right. I don’t understand how people can conveniently overlook or ignore the Second Amendment as an individual civil liberty protected by the Constitution.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/24/defaming-gun-owners/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

31 Comments

  1. wait, what’s the problem here? To potential robbers, that list should read as a list of houses to stay the hell away from. No one wants to get shot, and no one is going to go out of their way to attack someone whom they know is packing heat.

    Comment by Jason — March 24, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
  2. Oh great idea Jason!!!

    Now the robbers and thugs can be more efficient! GG.

    Comment by Mike — March 24, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
  3. Jason (commentor, not Pye),

    One of the stories was about a woman who got a CCW permit because she was being stalked by an abusive ex-boyfriend. She had already had to move twice to avoid him, because he was tracking down her address.

    With her address being again published in a public easily-searchable database, she was again easy to locate, and had to move.

    If it were me with a CCW, I wouldn’t necessarily mind, because I haven’t taken extensive measures to hide who I am or where I live, and as you point out, it may make me a less likely target. Some people have reasons that they need to take such precautions, however, and having a newspaper just give an easy way to find that person doesn’t seem very fair to them.

    Now, I’m not going to claim that the paper doesn’t have the right to publicize a searchable database of information which is available in the public record. However, I find it very irresponsible to do so.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 24, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
  4. It is an issue of privacy and civil liberty. The government shouldn’t know who has a weapon…that’s the beauty of that civil right.

    The Germany imposed their first registration the Nazis knew exactly where to go take to away the guns.

    George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights said, “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” That is prophecy as to what has happened in the 230 years since the Declaration of Independence.

    Comment by Jason Pye — March 24, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
  5. CCW-holding citizens of VA should take up a class-action lawsuit against that paper for violating their privacy (or whatever they can legitimately sue them for; the NRA’s lawyers can think of something). sue the owners, publishers, and chief editor personally for risking the safety and property of these law-abiding citizens by targeting them for gun-robberies.

    a picketing and boycott campaign would be a good idea. target anyone advertising with that newspaper as well, and any public subscription lists.

    call their state congressmen and ask for an immediate change to the law so that these CCW records cannot be released containing personally-identifying information. most states have already done this for motor-vehicle registrations and should be compelled to do so for any records compiled (and compelled) by the state.

    Comment by johnny — March 24, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
  6. Stormfront.org members are law abiding citizens exercising their rights to free speech. They are also hate mongers who wish to see all non whites segregated out or preferably dead.

    Fred Phelps and his “church” go around with ‘God hates fags’ and ‘God-bless IEDs’ signs, and protests at military funerals. They are law abiding citizens exercising their rights.

    Abiding the law and exercising your rights does not automatically make you likable, smart, correct, or admirable. It just means you’re not a criminal.

    Gun owners that own guns for ‘defense’ are universally insecure by definition, and now on top of it, dangerous. Gun manufactorers should be disallowed from selling guns to citizens.

    Comment by Che — March 24, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
  7. Yeah,

    wanting to be able to protect myself and my family makes me insecure. This is especially coming from someone using “che” as a name. Bloodthirsty much?

    Nick

    Comment by Nick M. — March 24, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
  8. According to this study disarming the citizenry does not lower violent crime. It increases crime because thugs with guns don’t have to worry about being shot.

    http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

    Comment by uhm — March 24, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
  9. Nick,

    Not so much, my parents named me Che.

    You have an insecurity that your family might be hurt, and that you’re unable to protect them. You can legitimize and rationalize all you want, but it’s an insecurity and fits my description. Also, you’ve obviously quite defensive about needing a gun, which points to the same.

    “uhm”,

    If you would examine the title of that study, it says that ‘GUN LAWS do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study’. The gun laws are the issue. It’s a poor implementation of gun control. Here is an excerpt from the study you cite:

    “England and Wales

    Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

    Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

    Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. ”

    In other words, the gun control was completely ineffective, because the GUN CRIME increased. Disarming the citizenry will work marvelously, provided you actually disarm them, and not just make it illegal to own, meaning only criminals will have it. That is, of course, ridiculous.

    Comment by Che — March 24, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
  10. Yeah, cause a disarmed population has worked out so well in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Great idea Che …….. IF the government can be trusted. Tell me, do you trust the government?

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 24, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
  11. Obviously you are a tool of the bourgeoisie, Adam. Any true socialist comrade knows that guns are a tool best left to the control of the state, for us mere subjects are incapable of exercising such power and authority. As for your question, why wouldn’t one trust the government? Assuming that it is a democratic socialist workers republic, naturally.

    Che, those of us that own guns for self protection might be insecure. However, I’ll much rather take my supposed “insecurities” and still be able to defend myself and my family than be able to call myself a manly macho man after I call the police to deal with the fact that I’ve just been mugged.

    Comment by mike — March 25, 2007 @ 12:50 am
  12. Che: It is every person’s right to defend himself. If you think you’re more secure by not having a gun, I think you’ve been smoking too much of that weed you hippies are so fond of.

    Comment by John — March 25, 2007 @ 5:50 am
  13. Where are you from Che?

    Gun control will always be ineffective. They can’t stop heroin from Turkey coming into Britain (don’t want to offend an ally). How could they possibly stop guns from coming in. They, like the US are unwilling to control their borders so guns can come in along with “undocumented workers.” Also the government gets to keep it’s guns. NO FAIR. What do you do when government goes bad?

    Comment by uhm — March 25, 2007 @ 6:17 am
  14. Che, how about minorities? I remember the only thing protecting Condoleezza Rice’s family when she was a child was her father and his arms.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050511-1803-rice-guns.html

    Comment by uhm — March 25, 2007 @ 6:24 am
  15. Mike,

    The issue of the mugger arises from the mugger having a gun. Your having a gun only levels the playing field. If neither of you have a gun, there’s a lot less potential for a fatal or serious injury, and on top of it, now plenty of people who don’t WANT to have to possibly kill someone who is mugging them will no longer be threatened by a mugger with a gun. Now there is a level playing field for everyone, not just you and the mugger. Much better situation.

    By the way, for everyone trying to bait me into the indefensible position of claiming a benevolent government… No, I distrust the government thoroughly. The only difference is, I believe that when a government has nukes, when a gov’t has tanks, when a gov’t has pain rays that make one feel like their skin is boiling, when the government has grenades, when the gov’t has gas that can knock you unconcious, when the gov’t has EMP bombs, when the gov’t has missiles, when the gov’t has audible weapons that make people collapse with disiness and vomit, I don’t have a lot of confidence that Bob, his cousin and their collection of handguns and semiautomatic rifles are going to be able to stop them. The forefather s said we have a right to bear arms, because back then, that’s all the government would have! The playing field was skewed to the people because of sheer numbers and everyone being armed equally. That is no longer the case by a long, long, long shot, and if you guys believe that the reason the gov’t hasn’t turned into tyranny yet is because of your gun collection… Well, take a look at what America is becoming. People have become sophsticated with politics, and can impose their will without the need of coercing their citizens by force.

    uhm,

    I’m American, born and raised. As Condoleeza goes, you once again have a situation where there are aggressors with guns. Of COURSE the guns benefited her. I’m not advocating a gun control law that disarms the noncriminal exclusively. Still. Also uhm, thanks for your enthusiasm while remaining cordial.

    Comment by Che — March 25, 2007 @ 9:11 am
  16. Che,

    Drugs are illegal in the US. Yet I could make a few calls and find drugs in a very short time if I really wanted to. Handguns are illegal in Britain, but any criminal that really wants to get a hold of a handgun can do so.

    The point is that you’ll never disarm the criminal. It’s impossible. Wishing that the government could actually disarm the criminals won’t make it so. Britain is proving that. Why do you think anything our government would do would make that different?

    Further, if a mugger doesn’t have a gun (and knows I don’t have one), what’s to stop him from coming at me with a baseball bat, a knife, etc? Will you then try to ban knives and swords (which, BTW, is exactly the road Britain is going down).

    As long as we’re living in a fantasy world, why don’t we just make crime and aggression illegal? That’s about as sensible as believing the government can disarm criminals.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 25, 2007 @ 10:41 am
  17. Che,

    The British have taken away guns. To the point where criminals are using blades. Lots of death can be caused with a blade. Taking away guns, does nothing to curb violence. I’m not trying to be facetious with this, but a Simpsons’ Tree House of Horror epeisode explains it quite nicely. Someone will always be able to put a nail through a board and use it as a weapon. When people want what you have, they will find a way to take it, whether it means harming or killing you.

    As for insecurity, do you carry a spare tire in your car? Do you have any first aid supplies at home or in your car? Why? Doesn’t this make you insecure? I call it being prepared for emergencies. It’s the same reason, I have and carry a gun, to be prepared for an emergency. Same reason I have first aid training and will be getting EMT training. You never know what’s going to happen on any given day, so you need to be as prepared as possible.

    Your paragraph on the military was a good one. I agree that the military has some weapons that make my guns look like water guns. However, those weapons are in the hands of Americans. We have conscientious objectors to foreign wars, what makes you think they wouldn’t go further than that if the government turned those weapons on the U.S. population?

    Nick

    Comment by Nick M. — March 25, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
  18. Che believes, apparently, that a civil war would monolithically have the military on one side. Of course, real civil wars have never been that simple. That said, the government does have some very powerful weapons. But, the truth is that it will do them no good against 100 million people armed with rifles and shotguns. Look at what happened in Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991 and judge whether having tanks and planes is a sure protection against “the people”.

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 25, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
  19. Governments are inherently inefficient. It’s their nature.

    Government cannot keep drugs off the streets, nor can it stop terrorism. What makes you think it can get rid of guns? That is a very naive notion and dangerous proposition.

    Individuals have a natural right to protect themselves from threats to their person or property where you like it or not. This is not some pacifist/communist utopia.

    FYI…Che is dead and hopefully burning in hell.

    Comment by Jason Pye — March 25, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
  20. Possibly because the Second Amendment of the US constitution is a travesty that needs to be repealed, and shaming the supporters of the travesty is a good start.

    Comment by Leo Petr — March 26, 2007 @ 8:44 am
  21. You hoplophobes are so cute! ;)

    Comment by tarran — March 26, 2007 @ 9:11 am
  22. Coming out of the woodwork now, aren’t you? Leo views the right to protect one’s life, liberty and property as a travesty! Nice.

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 26, 2007 @ 10:11 am
  23. My fingers are going to get sore discussing this :)

    Brad,

    ‘Drugs are illegal in the US. Yet I could make a few calls and find drugs in a very short time if I really wanted to. Handguns are illegal in Britain, but any criminal that really wants to get a hold of a handgun can do so.’

    Drugs are an entirely different issue, as they create a physical and psychologic dependance. A normally non-criminal type personality can turn to robbing homes & businesses and mugging just to support the habit. I understand that certain states ban owning certain types of guns. How many of your law-abiding gun owning friends would start sticking up liquor stores so that they could buy one of these guns on the black market? I would guess zero.

    As I’ve said (and I suspect will have to keep saying)… Britian is clearly not doing it right. Just saying ‘handguns are illegal’ is not effective.

    ‘The point is that you’ll never disarm the criminal. It’s impossible. Wishing that the government could actually disarm the criminals won’t make it so. Britain is proving that. Why do you think anything our government would do would make that different?’

    I’m not convinced it’s impossible. Money is the biggest deterrent to keeping people away from anything, for example. Rolexs are highly desired by a large majority of men, but only very few own them, and that’s because they’re scarce and expensive. It’s true that it becomes impossible to keep cheap and desirable items out of the public’s hands by making it illegal, but I’m still not advocating just having a guns-are-illegal law and calling it a day.

    ‘Further, if a mugger doesn’t have a gun (and knows I don’t have one), what’s to stop him from coming at me with a baseball bat, a knife, etc? Will you then try to ban knives and swords (which, BTW, is exactly the road Britain is going down).’

    The power to point and kill at a distance instantly is a vastly different power than being able to swing a stick, no matter how thick the stick is. If they were anywhere near equivilant, we’d expect to see at least a signifigant portion of robberies being done with bats and knives. It doesn’t appear to me to be equivilant in your mind, and it certaintly isn’t in mine.

    ‘As long as we’re living in a fantasy world, why don’t we just make crime and aggression illegal? That’s about as sensible as believing the government can disarm criminals.’

    Please read my posts.

    Nick,

    ‘The British have taken away guns. To the point where criminals are using blades. Lots of death can be caused with a blade. Taking away guns, does nothing to curb violence. I’m not trying to be facetious with this, but a Simpsons’ Tree House of Horror epeisode explains it quite nicely. Someone will always be able to put a nail through a board and use it as a weapon. When people want what you have, they will find a way to take it, whether it means harming or killing you.’

    How might a person hold up a bank with a knife? the ability for one person to threaten 40 or 50 people at a single time is exclusively a ‘quality’ of a gun. As I discussed with Brad above, a gun is head and shoulders above the abilities of any other weapons. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather have a world in which an aggressor is armed only with a knife than with a gun. You might be able to outrun a knife, or grab an arm as it strikes, but you have little chance of outrunning a pisol, or grabbing a bullet. I don’t imagine taking away guns would somehow create a Utopian society by any means, but if most criminals choose a gun as there #1 facilitator of crime, doesn’t it make sense to take that away?

    ‘As for insecurity, do you carry a spare tire in your car? Do you have any first aid supplies at home or in your car? Why? Doesn’t this make you insecure? I call it being prepared for emergencies. It’s the same reason, I have and carry a gun, to be prepared for an emergency. Same reason I have first aid training and will be getting EMT training. You never know what’s going to happen on any given day, so you need to be as prepared as possible.’

    In the situation with the spare tire and first aid, I am not keeping those around to hurt another person. For some reason, in all my life, I have not had a single friend or relative get into a situation where a gun would have saved their life, or saved them from serious injury. Many of them have had cause for a first aid kit and spare tire, however. For some much more bizarre reason, anytime I discuss this topic with gun owers, they -ALWAYS- do have incidents that have happened. This seems to be a fact: Gun owners seems to get in situations where they need their gun.

    As for the case when you genuinely might need your gun for an emergency, that is almost certaintly neccessitated by an aggressor having guns. I’d like to prevent that situation as a possibilty, rather than hand guns out to everyone.

    ‘Your paragraph on the military was a good one. I agree that the military has some weapons that make my guns look like water guns. However, those weapons are in the hands of Americans. We have conscientious objectors to foreign wars, what makes you think they wouldn’t go further than that if the government turned those weapons on the U.S. population?’

    Indeed! But that doesn’t change the power imbalance between military weapons, and civilian weapons. The seceding military folk would have the power of the gov’t military folk, and the civilian weapons still won’t matter much comparitively.

    Jason,

    Please don’t be insulting again if you want to discuss anything with me.

    ‘Governments are inherently inefficient. It’s their nature.’

    We agree :)

    ‘Government cannot keep drugs off the streets, nor can it stop terrorism. What makes you think it can get rid of guns? That is a very naive notion and dangerous proposition.’

    Have you tried to buy LSD lately? It’s basically impossible now, and has been for about 10 or 15 years. That’s because the gov’ts were able to cut off the supply by shutting down the producers who accounted for about 95% of the production.

    In truth, I’m not 100% sure that they COULD get rid of guns. But I think, given the possible benefit, it would be an excellent possibility to explore.

    ‘Individuals have a natural right to protect themselves from threats to their person or property where you like it or not. This is not some pacifist/communist utopia.’

    Indeed, which is a seperate issues from the right to bear arms :) Do you think I am defenseless simply because I don’t have an arsenal of firearms? Taken a step further, should someone who owns a rocket launcher consider you defenseless? Does your right to defend yourself mean that because that person has a rocket launcher, you have the ‘right’ to one as well? If I’m not defenseless, than neither are you without a gun, and so your right to defend yourself doesn’t include owning the gun.

    tarran,

    ‘You hoplophobes are so cute! ;)’

    I got to
    ‘How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?’ before being completly sure that your article was complete trash. You may want to never refer people to that again if you want them to look at you with any respect.

    Comment by Che — March 26, 2007 @ 11:18 am
  24. Che, let’s start with this:

    How might a person hold up a bank with a knife?

    How might a few men go about seizing an airliner with box cutters? You, obviously, discount the fact that the majority of people are not prepared to deal with violence. When they are confronted with a violent person, they tend to be cowed by the threat of violence. It’s not, generally, the weapon. Rather, it is the person wielding the weapon that creates the threat and the violence.

    Now, on to your bigger point. You have written a lot of wonderful words about how you can’t just make guns illegal, you have to really get rid of them. So, how do you propose doing that? Let’s point out that the government of the USA has tried to ban alcohol and some drugs for nearly a century now, with little success. And I, a person not addicted to any drugs, can easily obtain any illegal narcotic I desire within an hour, at the most. And this is true even in countries like Singapore that have truly tough drug laws.

    So, what do you propose?

    You haven’t yet addressed the issue that guns are the great equalizer that allows individuals to protect life, liberty and property nor the idea that an armed populace cannot be oppressed by an authoritarian government. You have made an airy wave of your hands and ignored completely that the first thing the worst authoritarian governments of the 20th century did was implement gun control (i.e. the Bolsheviks and Nazis). Now, why do you suppose they did that if governments have nothing to fear from an armed populace?

    How about some actual depth to your answers?

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 26, 2007 @ 11:44 am
  25. Che, sweetie, you weren’t my target audience. I probably should have made that clear.

    Comment by tarran — March 26, 2007 @ 11:51 am
  26. You guys apparently aren’t understanding Che here.

    Obviously, it’s not just enough to just ban guns. After all, just passing a law and banning something doesn’t make it disappear. You have to actually BAN guns.

    Notice the bold face and all-caps. With bold-face and all-caps, the ban will work.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 26, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
  27. The notion that a bad person is somehow limited in the damage they can do by the lack of guns kind of cracked me up.

    It would be an interesting to see an analysis of crime rates in some society as a function of weapons technology. For example, in the ancient Roman empire, crime was pretty high, even setting aside the enslavement of entire populations by armies armed with shortswords, lances, and some pretty weak artillery.

    Handguns made their appearance about the time of the violent wars between protestants and Catholics in France. It seems to me (and this is an impression and not based on systematic research) that the advent of the musket and the hand-gun marked the high-water mark of routine state violence. Since then, the violent massacres then seem to be visited by well-armed groups of people upon poorly armed victims.

    To me, the theoretical explanation for such a reduction is clear. It only takes a little training to allow someone to defend themselves credibly with a gun or rifle, it takes much more training to use a sword or spear effectively.

    I studied Kung Fu for many years, and it was only with daily practice with a sword or knife that I had any chance of using them effectively.

    One can practice once a month with a gun, and maintain a high degree of proficiency.

    This difference means that in a primitively armed society, the violent criminals have a much greater advantage in a fight over their victims than in a well-armed society. When I was in good form, put me with a group of 10 novices in a gymnasium (with room to maneuver), and there was a good chance that I could have killed them all with a sword, even if we were equally armed.

    Arm everyone with firearms, and the advantage would be with the novices.

    It seems to me that a firearm is a boon to society in that, in contrast to the weapons that preceeded it, it could be mastered by a person who had to work for a living. It allowed a tradesman to defend himself against a professional soldier or aristocrat.

    Personally, I am happier with the thought of living amongst armed neighbors; I maintain good relations with them, and who knows, if I am caught by surprise one of them could possibly defend me. If I was on bad terms with my neighbors, having them disarmed would not be a comfort; a homicidal neighbor could simply burn my house down – no gun required.

    Comment by tarran — March 26, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
  28. Interesting Tarran. I contemplated discussing my own experience with martial arts and in the military, but decided that it would be difficult to get the idea across. Che is completely fixated on the gun as violent rather than the person as violent. Just as a sword made it easier for someone to defend themself than a club did, so the gun does the same in comparison to the sword.

    I spent more than 15 years of my life training in a variety of martial arts, including Shao-Lin Kung Fu, HapKiDo karate and Thai kickboxing. I hold a black belt, or equivalent, in each. From personal experience I can say that my confidence in my physical abilities, coupled with my training, is such an edge when dealing with someone else that I could easily cow them as rapidly without a gun as you could cow them with a gun. It is a rare person that is prepared to deal out violence. If you take away guns, then those with guns could cow the entire population.

    To suggest, as Che does, that a completely unarmed population could effectively deal with an oppressive government is ludicrous, wishful thinking. On the other hand, if a significant portion of the population is armed, and opposed to the activity of the government, the government’s tanks and planes will only be of minor value to them.

    Clearly the insurgents in Iraq do not have tanks and planes. They have rifles, RPG’s, mortars, IED’s. That is, they have only those things that an armed citizen could reasonably acquire. And yet, somehow, they manage to keep fighting against the Iraqi and American armies that are, indeed, equipped with everything possible, including nukes.

    How is that Che? Enlighten me, please.

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 26, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
  29. tarran and Adam,

    I’m in the same boat. I studied Hapkido for 7 years (up to 2nd degree black belt), and did some cursory training in judo. In addition to my training, I’m 6’5″ and 250 lbs. To put it simply, if I chose to act in a menacing manner, I would be at an extreme advantage in an unarmed combat situation against probably 98%+ of the population. If I were still actively training, that percentage would probably be even higher.

    Put firearms into the equation, and I become nothing more than a big target.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 26, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
  30. There are two reasons to be in favor of gun control/ban.

    1. You believe that banning guns will reduce violent crime. I think that if you were to study social patterns of crime, you will find much more crime committed in societies where the general populace is not able to defend themselves on equal footing with those who would oppress them, whether they be criminals or the government (often both).

    2. It is necessary to ban guns in order for a government to be able to implement a more utopian society. The real reason that the left advocates gun control. Aside from commenting that both the fascist and communist variety of socialists make ending private gun ownership one of their first priorities, I think I need not say more.

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 26, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
  31. One other interesting question. We live in the country that first proved that a “guerrilla army” (the Continental Army was clearly not a “real army” for most of its existence) could put tactics in place that would allow it to fight a “real army”. The initial Continental militias during the American Revolution had almost no artillery, no cavalry, barely enough muskets to arm and equip the infantry. Yet, somehow, they managed to fight to a standstill the British Regulars and their German mercenary troops. The British Army was considered to be the finest in Europe in 1774. Yet they lost, or stalemated, several battles against militia between 1774 and 1776. Washington managed to avoid defeat and keep his army intact for the next several years even at such a severe disadvantage. It is wishful thinking to say that armies in the 18th century were all about having muskets.

    That’s completely misunderstanding the reality of combat by 1775, or so. Logistics, navies, artillery and cavalry were quite sophisticated and the average musket bearing infantry soldier was at as much of a disadvantage then as an assault rifle equipped infantryman today would be against a tank.

    This is to completely misunderstand a maxim of warfare:

    There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

    Any soldier that forgets that maxim tends to become a casualty.

    So, here’s the interesting question. How is it, with so many examples throughout our own history (the American Revolution, the US Civil War, Little Big Horn, the Filipino insurgency, Vietnam, Iraq, to name a few), that we have forgotten that it is the dangerous man, equipped with the firearm, that equalizes things, not the government with it’s tanks, planes and nukes?

    Comment by Adam Selene — March 26, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML