Conservatives tend to view handguns as a means of self-defense. Whereas liberals tend to view handguns as purely destructive devices.
Perhaps more importantly, conservatives tend to view guns and wars as tools that solve problems. Whereas liberals tend to see guns and wars as creating problems. (No battle ended the Irish “Troubles.” Egypt, [in 2011, was] working toward reform, while Iraq and Afghanistan are still a mess.)
Surprised by a criminal, it rarely helps to own a gun. The sole purpose of handguns is to kill people – as, all too often, they do. Gun advocates often seem too frightened of crime to recognize that countries with strict gun control laws suffer fewer gun deaths.
The first step is to increase the penalties for the criminal sale and use of guns and revoke the licenses of any whose negligence supplies those guns. Machine guns are essentially weapons of mass destruction and should, without question, be banned. (Hunting weapons are OK.)
The goal is to reduce drunken, distraught, and/or “accidental” shootings, and to reduce violent crime by making handguns more difficult (and expensive) to obtain.
As for the Second Amendment, “well-regulated militias” no longer have any role (but regulation certainly does).
(Published in the Rockford (IL) Register Star 11/15/11)
The three “Letters to the Editor” reproduced here were, of course, originally intended to stand on their own.
“Guns are not the answer“ 2/17/13
“Gun rights” advocates view guns (and wars) as tools that solve problems. Whereas liberals tend to see guns (and wars) as creating problems.
Surprised by a criminal, it rarely helps to own a gun. Making handguns more difficult (and expensive) to obtain would reduce drunken, distraught, and/or “accidental” shootings, and should reduce violent crime.
Many say don’t blame the tool, blame (flawed) individuals for gun violence. The sole purpose of handguns is to kill people. Automatic weapons are essentially weapons of mass destruction. But what I most object to is the implicit belief that killing people solves problems.
“Shoot first and ask questions later” is a lousy crime fighting strategy, and it is an even worse foreign policy.
Violence breeds violence. People are all too prone to cherish their grievances. And one certainly does not stop violence by encouraging everyone to be armed.
Fight crime by combating the root causes (e.g. by ending the “war on drugs”) and by working to ensure that crime does not pay. The goal of all law enforcement is not to punish the wicked. The goal of government is to make it easy for people to behave well. Guns make it easy to kill.
“The more guns people have, the more people get shot.” 10/3/13
As clearly demonstrated in Britain and Australia, gun control reduces gun violence. The more guns people have, the more people get shot.
The first steps are universal background checks and increased penalties for negligent or criminal gun sales or use.
All too often, the pleasure many take in gun ownership, like pornography, is not an innocent pleasure. (They say power is an aphrodisiac. And taking pleasure in possessing the ability to kill people definitely isn’t nice.) Pornography is tolerated, while, at least, automatic weapons should not be, because those effected by legal pornography are consenting adults. Whereas, few people consent to be shot.
When our Constitution was written, there was no standing army. We were supposed to defend our government with “well regulated militias.”
What protects us from government tyranny is our ability to change that government by voting, jury trials, a free press, the separation of powers, a citizen army under civil authority, or, if worst comes to worst, civil disobedience.
It’s ridiculous that those who most seem to fear government tyranny are often both the most vociferous in their “support of our troops” and quickest to tear up the Constitution out of fear of terrorism.
Of course, military action is sometimes necessary. (It was necessary to defeat Hitler.) But military action is never enough. It is also necessary to have a plan to win the peace. Right-wing hawks also seem to fail to understand, as did “W” Bush, the fundamental (albeit depressing) truth that a foreigner is someone whose interference is almost always resented.
I agree with Jon Stewart that ISIS, AL Qaida and Islamic extremism generally are fundamentally threats that are both the result of tensions in the Islamic world and need to be fought by other Muslims.
The problem is, of course, 1) oppressive, sectarian and/or corrupt governments are the norm in the Mideast. Indeed, oil finances bad governments throughout the world. (Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela are also oil states.) And 2) because of sectarian, ethnic and tribal or clan differences, most Iraqis think of most other Iraqis as foreigners. ISIS was able to invade Iraq because so many in the Iraqi army were not willing to fight to defend Iraq. When those in command either conspired ISIS or simply did not act, the rank and file deserted.