Wherein I showcase my occasional conservative leanings

The Supreme Court has struck down DC's ban on hanguns, and I think this is an excellent move. This is one of a small handful of cases in which I have sided with the more conservative side of the court.

I am definitely a person concerned with gun safety, but I also firmly feel that guns can be one of many valid self defense tools. They shouldn't be a tool everyone chooses to use, but everyone should have that right.

Of course, that right comes with responsibilities. If I were a lawmaker, I'd require a gun license to own a gun, and the license would consist of a class in gun safety (unloading, clearing, cleaning, shooting, etc). I'd also increase penalties for improper use of a gun. But the fact that some people are ignorant and choose to use their guns in an unsafe manner (yes, in this case, maintaining ignorance is a choice) should not preclude responsible gun ownership for protection in the home.

Comments

[sarah]

I definitely don't agree. The average person is more likely to get shot by his/her own gun than an assailant's. Most self defense specialists recommend not carrying a weapon (gun, knife) unless you are very proficient with its use, since many weapons can be too easily turned against the victim. That would mean that to own a gun, you'd need extensive training in it's use (not just a simple safety course) and maintain that training. Plus, brandishing a gun only escalates a dangerous situation.

Bottom line: it's easier to keep handguns off the streets if they aren't also in our homes.

[Leah]

just because plenty of people are stupid with their guns does not mean that every_single_person should be banned from carrying a handgun.

In this case, individual people are now free to make their own choices. In a society where everyone is legally barred from owning a gun, the only people who will have them are already breaking the law. Now, those who wish to break the law will have the uncertainty of not knowing if the other person has a gun or not.

I still think gun owners need education and must be responsible citizens. I don't think it's a smart idea to say "nah, you're all dumb and won't be able to handle it, so none of you can have a gun."

[Palmer]

While a gun can technically be considered a "valid" tool, it is not a GOOD one. As mentioned, you are far more likely to be shot with your own gun than without. Also, the chances of actually being injured in a confrontation skyrocket when you (the victim) pull out a gun.

That's right, using a gun for self-defence makes you MORE likely to get seriously hurt or killed. This is significantly higher for handguns as compared to longarms.

The amusing thing is that you're really contradictory in your post.

You both support a motion to allow unfettered access to handguns... and then say you want to limit access to guns.

When you impose rules and regs on ownership as you are suggesting, then you are removing the "right" to bear those arms.

One way or the other. You can't have it both ways.

[Jason Westbrook]

First, I think Leah makes a valid point and I agree with her, though I'd also add a background check to make sure their record is clear (if there isn't one already).

Second, I completely disagree with Palmer. Laws are not just made to impose sanctions but are also made to protect people. A good example of this is the seatbelt law. If you don't wear your seatbelt when you drive a car you can get a ticket for that. By your own assertions, you believe that this restricts/removes your right to own a car. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Finally, ban or no ban I don't think all the criminals in DC would have a problem getting their hands on a handgun regardless of the ban. In fact, it would only ensure that all the other law abiding citizens wouldn't have one and make it much safer and easier to rob people.

[Leah]

nope -- I said that everyone should have the right to own guns. Just like everyone has the right to drive a car. That's far different from "everyone should be carrying a gun all the time."

Again, I also repeat that people have a personal responsibility to learn how to care for their gun and use it properly.

yes, using a gun in a confrontation escalates the confrontation. But that's not the entire story. Like Jason said, a ban on handguns does not keep handguns out of the hands of criminals. All the ban does is let criminals know that the odds are pretty good that the average house will not have a gun.

[sarah]

Do you really think that the "possibility" that you might have a gun in your house actually deters would-be burglars? And as Palmer reiterated, pulling out your gun during a burglary is more likely to get you killed than not. So if laws exist to protect the people... well, you do the math.

And Leah, you might abide by your "personal responsibilities" but unfortunately not everyone does. Handguns are NOT a self-defense weapon, they are made to kill people -- if you didn't want to kill someone then a taser gun or even pepper spray would suffice. But handguns are meant to KILL, and it only takes one "irresponsible" gun owner to fulfill that purpose. I just can't be convinced that a weapon intended for killing should be in anyone's home.

[Leah]

Hey, if people want to weed themselves out of the gene pool, more power to them.

I do think that the possibility of having a gun in your house can deter a potential burglar. If you are thinking of breaking into a house, you might think a bit harder about it (or feel a much greater perceived need) before doing so if you know that there is a possibility that you might be shot.

Sometimes, unfortunately, defending yourself does mean killing someone else. It's a sad fact of life. If we could live in an ideal world where no one had guns, I would be super happy with that. Heck, I'd even be happy if the US was a country where it's super hard for _every_single_person to get a gun, legally or not. But we live in a world where plenty of people own guns and even more people illegally acquire their guns, and I don't think it is alright to say "okay, no guns allowed for all you people who are just living your normal lives" when the police and city don't have the power to remove guns from every single person.

[Jaymie]

So...in Canada we do not have a right to bear arms. This is important.

We do have lots of laws regarding guns, gun safety and gun ownership. Everyone who wants a firearm has to go through a safety course. These are the basics (how to check safety, load/unload etc)

You must then apply for a licence. Obviously, if you have a criminal record, or mental health issues you don't get the licence (therefore no gun).
Then you can go buy a gun. If it's handgun, the safety course you have taken will be much more indepth. There is always a few days delay for the transfer of ownership.

The big difference? We are not allowed to have firearms for protection of life. At ALL times your FA must be locked up. For a handgun, this means trigger locked AND in locked storage.

I'm good with all of this. This makes me feel safer, that there's not a bunch of @ssholes walking around with a handgun. You can be sure that 99.9% of the people you see anywhere will not have any sort of firearm on them.

The criminals get theirs illegally. Which usually means....from the States.

[AndyB]

I have mixed feelings on this, likely because I was raised by two parents who spent years in the NYC emergency services. (I got a talking to the day I brought home a squirt gun. Seriously.)

That said, the practical side of my brain has coexisted and lived comfortably with a few gun owners over the years- the difference being that they treated their weapons with respect, and defense wasn't their primary goal. (Unless you count Bambi as a threat)

I'm more impressed by practical uses like responsible hunting than the "protection at home" argument, honestly- that always struck me as a strawman. Having a loaded, unlocked gun handy to deal with a burglar seems a bit odd, and the gains are plenty offset by the increased availability of weapons on the streets. (I may be protected at home, but if someone pulls a pistol on me downtown, I'm screwed)

So, per self-defense: it's really a matter of where you'd draw the line on who can carry guns (and where), and whether the limits you set promote enough safety to balance out other uses. As you point out, teaching people to be responsible about gun ownership is a hugely important first step.