I try to present facts and logic and solutions rather than just opinions.

Please send any reasoned disagreements to me.       





I'm reasonably familiar with guns: Private ownership of all guns should be banned.

People don't need a gun to: People should be able to rent a gun for a short amount of time to: Yes, for the first years of a complete ban, law-abiding people would lose their guns and criminals would still have them. But over time, most guns will be removed from the country, and most criminals will lose their guns. With fewer opportunities to buy or steal guns, this will happen.

I'm not persuaded that the Constitution guarantees private ownership of guns. The Founders also believed in slavery and no voting for women or Indians, didn't know or care about environmental issues or abortion, didn't say anything about privacy, authorized land and naval forces but not an air force, didn't put freedoms of speech and religion into the Constitution (they're in the later Bill of Rights), etc. Certainly they didn't believe blacks or Indians had a right to possess guns ! And the Founders weren't unanimimous about anything, and fought each other politically before, during and after the Revolution. And lots of things have changed since those days; the Constitution is just one component of the laws of this country, there is a long history of reinterpretation and modification of it, and even the Founders called their work the start of an "experiment".

And a strict literal reading of the Constitution leads to unreasonable logic: "bear arms" would mean no limits at all. Machine guns, RPG's, dynamite, anthrax, mustard gas, car-bombs, cannon all are "arms". Are they all to be legal ? Why not ? And it doesn't say that "the People" can be taken to exclude criminals, the insane, and children. Strict literalism is wrong.

The USA should stop exporting weapons, too. They just spread death around the world, and often come back to hurt the national interest of the USA (for example, the USA armed the Afghans, who became the Taliban and Al Qaeda). I know the French and others would take up the arms-exporting slack, but then we could start pressuring them to stop exporting too (at least to individuals), and we'd have some credibility in the argument.

Some people seem to feel so threatened by the outside world that they have to have dogs and alarm systems and guns, and they still feel under siege in their own home. Maybe I'd feel that way if I'd been raped or my spouse had been murdered, or if I lived in a place dominated by gangs. But I think it's more effective to take guns away from citizens and criminals, and make the police work better. I fear all the wacko, aggressive, drunk or just confused citizens out there with major firepower at their fingertips. Mistakes, suicides, accidents, child-access, theft are much more prevalent and likely than successful defense with gun. [But someone told me New Hampshire, I think, has unrestricted concealed-carrying, and there aren't bloodbaths there. I'll have to research that.]

Conflict and crime will always be with us. But it would be better if fights involved fists or knives instead of guns or bombs. Less chance of death, to those fighting and to bystanders.

Other countries seem to get by without a gun in every house; why can't we ?







Home       Site Map 1