Hard to believe this has not been diaried; but I searched and did not find. Glenn Reynolds has an Op-Ed in Tuesday's NY TImes -- in praise of a new town ordinance in Greenleaf, Idaho:
Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.
He goes on to argue:
Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.
It is hard to know where to begin with this. First, my own checquered background: born in blue NY City, spent much of childhood in gun-rack country (coastal and inland Maine, at various times), married a purple state gun-hating gal whose mom had had a carry permit for social work in the Projects; I am currently a blue-state inhabitant. Also an anecdote to set the stage. In the late 70's, I re-visited Maine and an old chum whom I hadn't seen in years -- the canoeing and fishing companion of my early teens, now a gun collector. He was showing us his new single shot .357 magnum (gorgeous dark blue metal in velvet lined case) -- my job involves metalwork, and I admit to admiring guns as artifacts -- we are passing this beauty around the room, when my buddy breaks it open and says: "Oops! A shell in the chamber!" To paraphrase one of the poets, 'My asshole dropped out and crawled back to Cambridge MA.'
So first of all, I believe this illustrates what statistics bear out -- that the more guns there are, the more danger there is, period.
Next point: Reynolds' maunderings about the historical imperative for gun ownership, which he claims to trace to Colonial times are out of context. Let's just say that living on a frontier in the days of the French and Indian wars might enforce logic of gun ownership which no longer exists in our own highly settled society. Do I impugn his scholarship? no; but as a card carrying wingnut, his every statement is open to the scrutiny of the fact checker. He also tries to rope in the Second Amendment, a curious historical rationale for which I heard recently from a fellow introduced to me as a constitutional law professor: to wit: guns were necessary to slave patrollers, and the Second Amendment was a sop to slave states to get their buy at the Constitutional Convention. Just a thought.
Finally, for all the tough talk in this country, very few people are actually prepared for the reality of pointing a loaded gun at another human being, much less the consequences of pulling the trigger. The idea of ragtag Rambo brigades helping the cops is ludicrous. How credible is the claim that neighborhood militias held off the looters in New Orleans? Again, I don't (snark) impugn Reynolds' reportage, but (snark), I'll take my answer off the air.