Society needs crime control, not gun control. Munday writes that "violent crime in America has plummeted" in the past two decades after the majority of states enacted "right to carry" legislation and issued permits to carry concealed weapons to citizens of good repute. I think there were many reasons for the decline, but "right to carry" certainly wasn't detrimental to it.
There are Second Amendment absolutists in America, and libertarians elsewhere, who regard a person's birthright to own/carry a firearm beyond the state's power to regulate. I'm not one of them. I think it's reasonable for communities to set thresholds of age, proficiency, legal status, etc., for the possession of lethal weapons, just as they set standards for the operation of motor vehicles, airplanes and ham radios. But it seems to me that, within common sense perimeters, you'd want to enhance, not diminish, the defensive capacity of the good guys, and increase rather than decrease the number of auxiliary crime-fighters who are available to be deputized when the bad guys start climbing over the fence.
Munday quotes no less an advocate of non-violence than Mahatma Gandhi on the imperial decree of the Indian Arms Act of 1878 that laid the foundation for the defencelessness of the victims of the Mumbai massacre 130 years later. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India," said the Mahatma, "history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Gandhi > Obama
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=4a451ee5-71c3-4f29-a826-3260fb1eaaa1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is a damn good reason this was our 2nd Amendment. There is a basic essential right to be able to defend yourself with lethal capacity. Defend yourself, your family and your property.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how anyone can make a valid argument against the right to own a firearm and the right for documented and trained individuals to carry one in public.
Should there be background checks? 7 days waiting periods? No criminal record? No military fully automatic rifles? ... I would say yes.
I don't see how anyone can make a valid argument against the right to own a firearm and the right for documented and trained individuals to carry one in public.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, 10,000+ gun deaths a year is a pretty good argument against something. What, I don't know, but something's not working.
Lamest argument ever.
ReplyDeleteThat is like saying thousands of auto accidents each year means we shouldn't allow people to be licensed drivers.
Try again.
You know what they say, cars don't kill people, people kill people... wait.
I've posted already about those misleading anti-gun statistics.
ReplyDeleteHow many of those shootings were justifiable homicides? If a legal gun is used in a lawful manner to protect innocent people, it should not be aggregated with murders and robberies because they are completely different things.
Yo I heard that thousands of people die from drowning every year...
ReplyDeleteThat is a good argument against something, what I don't know... let's ban water!
You guys are cute, seriously.
ReplyDelete