You like guns because you are insecure and incompetent

Letter: Insecurity drives gun advocates:

Aside from being a hunting tool and a defense mechanism, it seems for some that a gun is now a device to reduce or allay their fears and insecurity. Many, if not most, of those who support gun freedom and feel there is security in gun ownership seem to be afraid that someone is going to try and rob them, threaten their life or the life of someone they love, take away something that belongs to them or infringe on their rights.

This resultant belief and comfort is under the assumption of course that a gun will somehow make a difference and prevent a tragedy or unwanted event. Further, they don't seem to trust the government or the police to do the job.

(H/T: GunWire - 5/10/14)

Response #1:  To quote Dr. Leonard McCoy, of the Starship Enterprise:

    "Jim .. you're an idiot!"

Response #2 (somewhat longer)

Response #2 (somewhat longer)
Well ... yes.

And no.

Let's start with the basics, shall we?

1. A Liberal is Someone Who Has Never Been Mugged.
2. A Conservative is Someone Who Has Never Been Arrested.

(Both statements are "Trite", but neither is Trivia.)

PROBABILITIES:

Probably,  both statements are true.  Although. they do ignore the great Middle America which has never been either mugged, not arrested.  Probably a lot like most of us, and those who find themselves in either category have probably not felt a lot of angst about either probability.

Generally speaking Liberals are the ones who are think "Guns Are Evil", because they kill people.  Conservatives are the ones who think "Guns Are Good".

Liberals think that guns are for killing.

Conservatives think that guns are for protection; as in: "If you attack me, I can defend myself.  If I don't have to kill you, that's better than you killing me. Either way, it's your choice in the first place."

And yes, Rebecca, there is a Santa Clause.  It's called "The Second Amendment".

Now it's time for the "picky-picky part".

Many, if not most, of those who support gun freedom and feel there is security in gun ownership seem to be afraid that someone is going to try and rob them, threaten their life or the life of someone they love ... 

Well, yes.  Although I would argue the "... be afraid ..." part of the statement.  I would lean toward "expect", though, as the operative clause.

Because, you know, there are those guys who do that on a daily basis.  You may not have witnessed that (perhaps you don't live in Chicago?)  Or maybe you have never shopped at a mall, with the "No Gun Zone" on the door, without thinking: "Whew!  I'm sure glad this is a No Gun Zone, 'cause otherwise there might be someone who would walk in the door and start killing people!"

But of course, that would never happen.  You KNOW that it's a Gun Free Zone, so nothing bad would ever happen that would cause you to wish you had some way to protect yourself.

Remember ... when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

POSSIBILITIES:

Also, there are Bad People out there, even if you pooh-pooh the possibility because it has never happened to you, or to anyone you know personally.  (Or to anybody you like.)

Perhaps you think it's stupid to think that someone would walk into your front door and attack the people you love?  Of COURSE it's stupid.

Doesn't mean it has never happened to you, or to anybody you loved.  Oh .. wait a second.  That's exactly what it means.  

Take it from a man who lost a wife, and her mother, in just that way.  Wow, that sure surprised me!  (Surprised my late mother-in-law, and late wife, and the two daughters who came home home after school to walk into a "domestic violence" scene, too.  That was in 1988.  My step son is currently serving a 65 year sentence in the state prison; he was 17 at the time, which is why he is not currently mimicking ambient temperature in an untended grave.)

Stupid people have stupid ways: he thought because he was a minor, he would get away with a double homicide.

This resultant belief and comfort is under the assumption of course that a gun will somehow make a difference and prevent a tragedy or unwanted event.

Uh, well ... actually, that assumption is fairly well founded; as is evidenced in a daily rush of news stories in any country where individually owned firearms is not prohibited.  Contrast this with news stories in countries where said firearms are prohibited, and criminals (who don't much care about the law, which is what makes them criminals) are the only people with the means to defend themselves; also, the only ones who can attack people fatally using firearms as a weapon.

Think about that.

Further, they don't seem to trust the government or the police to do the job.

Funny you should say that.

Let's talk about the police.

You DO know, I hope, that the police are not legally obliged to protect you?  This has been repeatedly and consistently upheld by American laws.  "Protect and Serve" ... what does that mean to you?  If you think "Protect you from a home invasion" or "Protect you from a street assault" is the meaning, you're wrong.  I recently suggested that police had the duty to "stop crime".  How disingenuous of me; if they stopped crime, they would be out of a job!

No, Rebecca; they have no mandate to stop crime.  They do arrest criminals, and criminal suspects.  Some times.  Not all that often.  Unless you are driving 55MPH in a 25MPH zone, in which case they will stop you and give you a ticket.  Sometimes they arrest people who they think have at some time committed a crime.  That's where their job ends, except for the occasional appearance at a trial.

Let's talk about the government.

The government has a few constitutional mandates: to make treaties with other nations, to pass laws, to regulate commerce.  To try the accused.

The only branch of the government whose job is to actually ENFORCE the laws is the Executive Branch.  My guess is that you voted for the current President of the United States (POTUS).  One of his duties is to enforce the laws established by the Legislative Branch (Congress) and interpreted by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court).

How's that "Hope And Change" thingie working out for you?  You DO realize that the current POTUS has refused to enforce the immigration laws, don't you?

Fortunately, the Legislative Branch can tell him what he can and cannot do; and the Judicial Branch can tell him if he's going about it the right way.

UN-fortunately, if he chooses to sit on his thumb .. there's nothing they can do about it.  Damn sure he is not legally required to do most of the things that a common citizen might reasonably expect he should do.

So .. no.  You're right.  I don't expect much from the Police, and I damn sure don't expect ANYTHING from the government .. expect a "Health Care Bill" which probably doesn't do what the President says it will do.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep him."

Did you notice how well that has been going for you, Rebecca?

Summary:

Gotta give you full credit, Rebecca.  You're dead-bang right!  (Sorry for the violent, fearful adjective.)

We who think Guns Are Good DO fear.  We love our country, but we fear our government; yes, we do think they're trying to take our guns away.  Your article is a sterling example of the reason for our concern.  You are denigrating us personally, and our 'attitude' philosophically, and our priorities dismissively.

Your arguments are so semantically loaded that it is impossible for the average reader to do other than to dismiss us as a bunch of "gun nuts". (Acknowledge that you carefully avoided using SUCH loaded semantics in your letter; clever of you!)

You are not alone in your casual dismissal.  For forty years, there was an apocryphal story about WWII.  Admiral Yamamoto,  stating that when he was presented with a plan to invade America that "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

Lately, there has been dismissed as "unattributed".  But he would have been right, you know.  The British learned that during the American Revolution.   If he did not actually speak those words, he should have; he was right, you know.

  Perhaps the land mass of America was too huge to permit logistical support for invading forces. Perhaps the distance from Japan to America was too far, for the same reason.  And perhaps Japan just really really wanted to avoid antagonizing America ... and the attack on Pearl Harbor was merely a good idea (intended only to intimidate) gone wrong.


 And surely there has been no nation so densely populated by Riflemen as America.

Historically, Americans have been considered by "civilized nations" as being pathologically obsessed by ".. their guns and their God".  That certainly intimidated the current POTUS.

So I ask you ... is that entirely "A Bad Thing"?

The Japanese were never as good at The Intimadation Thing as are Americans.