Since McDonald (well and before it) people have been claiming that people wanting to own guns for self-defense are racist, paranoid, et cetera. They claim you don’t need a gun for self defense. They claim you don’t need a gun. They claim that guns cause more accidents than crimes they prevent. I want to debunk this.
First, I will start with the easy one: You don’t need to own a gun, because they are dangerous.
The latter is true. Guns can kill people. Everyone knows this — no one will argue that point. Guns are designed to efficiently kill.
However, by that logic — unless you live somewhere with poor public transport or where things are not in walking distance, you do not need to own a car. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to own a car, either. You also don’t need to own a pool — children could drown in it! And again, no guarantee. There are many dangerous, unnecessary things in this world. Either you are against all of them or you are inconsistent. If the former, well, then, I can be of no help for you and you should perhaps seek help for your constant fear of harm.
If the latter, then your inconsistency probably is born of ignorance or hatred, both of which can be cured.
We don’t restrict people to owning things based on need. The first amendment existed before hardcore videographic pornography. Nobody needs that. Yet we allow it — and it can destroy lives and marriages if someone becomes addicted to it.
Now for the uses of guns:
Sport: Target shooting. Perfectly legal, legitimate use. Causes no harm, and is an Olympic sport. Guns can be used for fun — they may have a lethal origin and design, but that is not their sole use. While there is no constitutional guarantee to sport shooting, there is also no constitutional guarantee to own a football, either. Sporting use should pass muster. In this case, guns are no more lethal than toys unless someone doesn’t take care to follow the rules.
Hunting: An accepted use of guns since they were invented. People use them to take down animals, either because the animals are pests, or because they want to mount the body of the animal on their wall, or they think it is nummy. If you’re against this, well, that’s fine, but hunters will band together (and abandon the rest of us gun owners) pretty quickly and shout you down. So I’ll leave this to them.
Self Defense: Ah, the mother load. This is the thing that makes you racist, or paranoid, or crazy, or have a small penis. To start with I will deal with these four common arguments. I will start with the racist one:
Anyone who thinks wanting to defend yourself or your family from harm makes you racist is nuts and not worth arguing with. Seriously people, the day caring about safety is racist is the day the Boy Scouts start burning crosses. Anyone who plays the race card at every turn is instantly dismissed from the world of adult conversation.
Ah, the small penis claim, the favorite of effeminate liberal men and woman with unfulfilled sex lives. What? If you can make random, offensive shit up, then so can I. I’d prove this one wrong but my wife won’t let me post a picture of my Johnson on the Internet. The only thing I’m compensating for with a firearm is the inability to throw projectiles at thousands of feet per second. These people are also dismissed; learn to argue without immediately going for baseless personal attacks then come back to the big people table. The rubberized legos are in the corner. No corners or sharp edges. Have fun.
Crazy — the only thing you can own that makes you crazy is the Lady Gaga discography.
Now, for the big one: Paranoia. To put it simply: No.
To put it simply, people do Horrible things. People do unspeakable things. There are tons and tons of reasons to think that, perhaps, this world is big and bad and not safe.
To put it simply, and stop linking to Wikipedia: People do bad shit. People do things that are evil. People hurt other people. It happens every day. Hundreds of people are murdered every year in Chicago and DC, despite their gun control laws. There is nothing paranoid about being prepared.
Is it paranoid to buy extra water when a hurricane is heading your way? Is it paranoid to evacuate? No. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car? No. Tires break, hurricanes knock out power and disturb supply lines. These things are more certain than a violent attack. But violent attacks happen. Chances are, a gun owner will go their entire life without needing a gun for defense. It’s just very likely.
However, if it does happen? Well it’d be better to have a gun than not. Is there any denying this? (There is, of course, if you belong to the “give them what they want” demographic who think it’s okay for women to be raped because the rapist just had a hard life.)
Here is the logic behind self defense, in the home or car:
I do not know the intent of a person who has forced or is trying to force their way into my home or my car, which contains me, my possessions, and my family. I do, however, know two things: 1) They have shown a willingness to violently break the law (and anyone coming into a home that is obviously occupied is committing a violent crime), and 2) People do horrible things. Thus, with the knowledge I have, there is then a greater than zero chance that the person is going to harm me or mine. Thus, paranoia is no longer in play. Now, I can attempt to ascertain this and risk being harmed or killed, thus further escalating the situation because now they have undeniably committed a violent felony and exposing my wife and step children to further danger.
Or, I can assume this person has no regard for human life, as evidenced by their career choice, and I can end them.
Potential worst case scenario outcome of the first course of action: Four dead people (with other potential violence, including rape, torture, and maiming) and a criminal on the loose. Statistics show people escalate their crimes as they continue to get away with them.
Potential worst case scenario outcome of the second course of action: One or more dead criminals, me and mine all right and a few bullets shy of a full house.
Logically, I’m going with the latter. If the perp doesn’t want to die, I’d suggest he not break into occupied houses or try and get into cars with people in them.
It is, of course, possible he’s just trying to get a DVD player to pawn for his next fix. However: 1) I can’t know that. 2) What right does he have to anything of mine? 3) Taking time to ascertain him exposes me and mine to further risk.
Further, giving them what they want does not guarantee your safety. I’ve mentioned this before, but I have two blood relatives who gave criminals their money and were then shot for their trouble. One fatally. Giving in is no guarantee, ever. Putting the person in the ground eliminates the threat.
And they wouldn’t be in such a danger if they didn’t try to take by force what was not theirs to begin with.
Finally, guns are the great equalizer. Height, weight, age, and strength matter not. A bullet can be equally damaging whether I shoot it, or my wife, or my grandmother. Guns allow people to protect themselves no matter what kind of monster is out to get them.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to not be hurt. There is something horribly wrong with wanting to deny other people the ability to defend themselves and their family. There is something mentally wrong with people who feel more pity for the criminal than the victim.
Yes, people die due to accidents with guns. But they also die in car accidents, swimming pool accidents, choking accidents. Innocent people are killed by guns. But they are also killed by knives, baseball bats, and rocks. We cannot eliminate accidents or murders. But we can prevent innocent people from being hurt, by allowing them to eliminate those who would do them harm. Criminals act out of ignorance or selfishness and hurt others.
Therefore they are exposing themselves to an innate risk that their next victim will be armed and willing to prevent there from being further victims. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d like hurting people be a risky career choice.
