Why Gun Control Won't Work in America

Now that even the more vitriolic media windbags have stopped trying to blame the tragic Arizona shootings on Sarah Palin, a more logical scapegoat has cropped up - guns.

And not without good reason. After all, the deranged young man who gunned down Rep. Giffords and murdered six others did so with a semi-automatic handgun he'd bought entirely legally from the Sportsman's Warehouse last November.

As a Brit - where handguns have been absolutely illegal for well over a decade, and tightly controlled for decades before that - it does seem like madness. What kind of society is it in which somebody can pop into a sporting goods store and pick up a 9mm instrument of death as casually as they buy a new pair of Speedos?

Well, it's America - where there are 50 guns for every member of the population (before you balk, there are an not inconsequential 6 guns for every Brit. That's a lot more than I'd expected, given how tight gun control is over there.)

This means that guns are everywhere in America - so banning the sale of them would still leave millions of handguns in legal and illegal circulation.

If a madman like the one who shot Rep. Giffords wanted to get his hands on a semi-automatic, gun control would add another step to the process, but he'd still be able to get one easily enough.

Don't believe me? Let me regale you with a story from my youth. Back in England, where private handgun ownership was illegal, I still knew a kid who took a gun to school.

It was a .45 caliber Browning semi-automatic that somebody's grandfather had been issued when he was serving in Cyprus in the '50s. When grandpa died, one of his offspring had purloined it from his effects and then sold it to this schoolkid for the princely sum of 25 quid. It didn't have bullets, and the kid had no place to get them, but even in 'gun free' Britain it shows that getting your hands on a shooter isn't exactly difficult.

Imagine, then, that guns are ten times more prolific and there's a subculture of 2nd Amendment nuts clinging to their cherished weapons. It's clear to see that the Arizona killer wouldn't need to look far to find a weapon, or ammunition.

And this is really where gun control fails in America. Gun control only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens to legally purchase handguns. The vast majority of gun crime, however, is not committed by law-abiding citizens, and the guns used to commit it are generally not purchased legally. There are millions of unregistered guns circulating through the criminal element in America and shutting up the Sportsman's Warehouse wouldn't prevent any of them being used to commit crimes.

But might it have prevented the shooting of Rep. Giffords and the other six victims?

In a country where guns are so prolific, it's impossible to say yes. Admittedly, the gun was purchased from a store - but the killer was shown to have been brooding about his attack for weeks in advance, so if he hadn't have bought that gun legally, from the Sportsman's Warehouse, it's entirely possible he would have found one somewhere else, illegally.

America - especially places like Arizona - is like the Wild West. People have guns out there. In a society in which almost anybody can be packing heat, it does seem fairer and safer to be able to give the law-abiding citizens the right to buy guns to defend themselves with, rather than ensure that only criminals have the 'right' to bear arms.

And that doesn't just sound like madness - it is. It's an impossible situation, a true Catch-22, but it's the truth.

The fact is, banning the sale of guns won't make the guns disappear, and there are literally hundred of millions of them circulating throughout America. That means that tragedies like the Rep. Gifford's shooting are going to happen again - and again - whether there's gun control or not.

Dumb Ideas: Taking an assault rifle to a presidential address...

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday.

This is the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Full story here.

It's considered incredibly politically incorrect to use the term 'retard' in describing stupid people, but I struggle to find a more appropriate word in this case.

Taking an assault rifle? To a presidential speech? Seriously - the sort of person who does that must be mentally retarded in some way. Anybody in full command of their faculties would realize that it's a dangerous, offensive, inflammatory and unbelievably stupid thing to do.

Oh, I can already hear the reasoning from the gun nuts: "I'm just exercising my 2nd Amendment rights." Well, maybe - but point that thing the wrong way and half a dozen Secret Service officers are going to exercise their gun-toting prerogative - straight into your chest.

The longer I live in America, to more sympathetic I get towards gun owners (until I read crazy stories like this.)

I mean, I get it. Owning a gun to defend your family is a right (despite the reams of statistical evidence suggesting that it might actually make your home more dangerous.) The other day, when we had strangers walking onto our driveway at 2am, even I figured the security of a little 'home protection' might be nice.

But there's a time and a place to carry your guns - and a presidential speech is not it.

These idiots who carry loaded handguns and rifles to presidential speeches are clearly just loudmouthed idiots, making a desperate cry for attention (and totally shooting to pro-gun movement in the foot as they do so.)

Private gun ownership is a constitutional right - but gun owners should remember that it's one which has been curtailed and limited across America. Most people's tolerance for maintaining 2nd Amendment rights is reliant on gun owners being safe, responsible and setting an example to others about how to properly keep guns.

These right-wing idiots, waving their rifles about, are just perpetuating the stereotype that gun owners are irresponsible, dumb and downright dangerous idiots - people who totally abuse their 'rights' and make the world more dangerous - and significantly more terrifying - in the process.

Personally, I think anybody who takes a loaded weapon to a presidential event should be arrested, have their guns confiscated and their weapon license revoked. They've clearly demonstrated that they lack the mental faculty to be safely trusted with a firearm.

2nd Amendment Hijinks

I've been getting some debate in recent days on this post I wrote - "The Flaw with the 2nd Amendment." It got me thinking about guns in general.

I've often said the worst part of the pro-handgun lobby tend to be the gunowners themselves. I'm behind the 2nd Amendment and I've bought into the statistics which prove gun crime is higher in states and cities with stricter gun control laws. I just hate the vocal majority of the pro-gun lobby.

After all, many handgun owners (or, at least, the pro-gun ones who post on the Internet) are irresponsible bores. Just take a look at this hysterical video I stole from CK's blog:



It's a VERY funny video, but it also illustrates that some (perhaps even most) gun owners are assholes.

So, let's just cut to the chase, Gun Nuts. Let's just admit the truth: Many, if not most of you, have a gun for myriad reasons, home security being just one of them. I get that and it's okay.

Guns are cool. Guns are sexy. Guns make you feel big and powerful and important. Gun smoke is one of the most thrilling scents in the world. Guns themselves have a slick, cold, heavy awesomeness that just makes them wildly fascinating.

They are loud and they are deadly. They are possibly the forth most thrilling thing a man can play with (after, in no particular order, a '69 Dodge Charger, an American Quarter Horse and a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader.)

Let's just cut to the chase. The pro-gun lobby is so big just because so many American men want to own guns. It's not about home defence or personal security - after all, a gun owner is several times MORE likely to see a member of his own family shot than a home intruder. It's about the fact that guns are cool and sexy and make us feel good.

So next time we're discussing the 2nd Amendment, cut the crap and be honest about it. Don't reel out the old 'deterrent' and 'home defence' dog and pony show when the issue of gun ownership comes up. Just admit you want to own a gun because they're awesome.

If you've got the balls to admit that, even ol' liberal Militant Ginger will stand shoulder to shoulder with you about the 2nd Amendment. I hate guns and they scare the crap out of me, but I believe in the Bill of Rights and I'd no sooner see the 2nd Amendment overruled than the Freedom of Speech or the Right to Silence squished.

Besides, it's your house and your family. If you're willing to risk a family member getting shot for the sake of going down to the firing range every weekend, that's your problem.

And so it begins...

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the right to bear arms might have been legal... But was it for the common good?

Already, gun freaks [That's an offensive term. We prefer to label them sufferers of 'Small Manhood Syndrome' - Editorial Bear] are pushing the envelope to see just how much idiocy they can get away with.

Target Practice in Texas

Read the story here...

In Texas, a 62 year old man saw suspected burglars in his neighbour's house. He called 911 and told them he was going to take his twelve gauge and confront them.

In the 911 call, a dispatcher urged the Texan to stay inside his house and not risk lives.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" the Texas gunman answered. "I'm going to kill them."

And he did - shooting both burglars in the back.

Remarkably, a Grand Jury eventually decided not to press charges against the 62 year old, citing he committed the double homicide in self defence. Despite the fact that:

• The burglars were outside, he was safely inside and they presented no immediate threat to him.
• He shot them by surprise, in the back, again suggesting that they presented no immediate threat to him.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating burglary and I think if you break into somebody's house, you deserve everything you get. But there is a clear difference between self-defense and making a premeditated decision to ambush and shoot two (possibly unarmed) men in the back - especially after announcing your intention to a 911 operator beforehand!

Premeditated pre·med·i·tat·ed /prɪˈmɛdɪˌteɪtɪd/ –adjective : done deliberately; planned in advance: i.e. a premeditated murder.

This Texan wasn't 'defending his home.' He was 'administering justice.' That's not his job - and he should pay the penalty for taking the law into his own murderous hands.

Airport Antics

Georgia, home to the Duke boys and the gorgeous Katie from Cuppa Joe, has recently passed a law allowing people to carry concealed handguns pretty much anywhere they like.

Previously, even if you had a Carry and Conceal permit, you were forbidden from taking your gun into any store or business that displayed a sign banning handguns (it's called personal choice, people!)

Gun nuts have helped overturn that ruling, allowing people to heft their concealed 'manhood compensation' anywhere they'd like. But Atlanta airport - the most fearsome Delta hub on the planet - is not impressed with that ruling.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said; "allowing citizens to carry firearms would create an environment that would endanger millions of people."

And she's quite right. Airports are the last place I want self-righteous sociopaths to be packing heat. One wrong move and your turban-wearing baggage handler might suddenly find himself the wrong end of an idiot's '2nd Amendment Rights' just because he was guilty of 'lookin' kinda A-rab.'

Anybody who's seen Goldfinger knows that airplanes and guns don't mix. Therefore, I will feel a LOT safer if guns are quite rightly forbidden from the airport. Currently, the General Manager of the airport has made the situation clear: "Leave your firearms at home."

However, some people, like Republican Tim Bearden, have decided to ignore the politely worded instruction and boasted to the Associated Press that he'd be packing 'concealed heat' when he headed over to the airport to pick up his family that week.

Read the story (and weep) here.

Mentality

This is the problem with private gun ownership. THE PEOPLE WHO OWN GUNS.

In countries like Switzerland, the military is made up of a civilian militia and therefore every homeowner in the country is required, by law, to own a fully automatic rifle at home. Yet per head of population, their rate of gun crime is fractional compared to America's.

Why?

Because these poor people don't proudly choose to become gun owners. They have gun ownership thrust upon them. They are the very living embodiment of 'a well regulated militia' as defined by the 2nd Amendment - and well regulated militias don't shoot retreating burglars in the back.

I can understand the logic of private gun ownership. I can understand the desire to protect your home and family. What I can't understand is crossing that line from 'home defence' to pretending to be a cowboy. This is why I'm convinced that the most vocal advocates of gun ownership are the people least suitable to keep firearms!

Guns and Glory

The term 'landmark ruling' is bantered about quite freely by both the left and right.

In reality, it should be reserved for Supreme Court decisions like the one today - in which a 5 to 4 majority defended the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. They said it clearly grants Americans the right to own and keep guns in their home for self defence.

Unbelievably, it was the first time in America's 200 year history that the Supreme Court had to decide on this hot issue - which divides right and left as sharply as issues like abortion.

Despite my clear dislike of guns - as I wrote about here - I have to admit that I'm happy with this decision. Why? Because it's clearly the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

The issue arose when a security guard, Dick Anthony Heller, was refused permission to keep a handgun in his Washington D.C. home. The District of Colombia has had a blanket ban on private gun ownership since 1976 - citing the sensible argument that suburbanites don't need weapons.

Which is true - and I fundamentally agree with that principle. However, the Constitution of the United States wasn't written with Washington suburbanites in mind. It was written with the memory of the Revolutionary War fresh in everybody's memory - and the knowledge that the revolutionary army was often made up of farmers and plantation owners bringing their own muskets to the battlefield.

The fact that these private citizens owned guns was the sole reason they were able to fight back against British occupation - and that cemented the importance of private gun ownership in the common American psychology.

But private gun ownership in America was important long after the revolutionary war.

Private citizens with rifles and pistols fought off Mexicans at the Alamo. People defended their plantations and homes against Confederates or Union soldiers during the American Civil War.

In the lawless wild west, a shotgun and pistols were essential to defend your homestead from Indians or desperadoes - or to deter shenanigans in a saloon-room game of poker.

Even during the 20th century, private gun ownership has played it's part. During the days of 'lynchings,' more than a few African American families were saved when 'Pop' scared off the mob with the business end of a twelve gauge.

When corrupt local lawmen wouldn't help, it was the 2nd Amendment (or, at least, the principle of it) which provided the most desperate last line of defence.

So while it's all too easy, in our smug suburban existence, to forget the important role the 2nd Amendment has played in American history, we should make an effort not to.

Yes, it's true. Living in the commuter belt of New York city, I know I don't need a gun. In fact, I'm more worried about my neighbours 'packing heat' than what might occur if we left our homes 'defenceless.'

I've said it once and I'll say it again - a Louisville Slugger is probably the most effective form of home defence out there.

But the issue up for discussion was THE LAW.

Aristotle told us: The law is reason free from passion.

Therefore, as much as I hate guns - passionately, in fact - the only reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the one decided on today by the Supreme Court.