An atmosphere of fear has been promulgated by newspapers, real events and gun dealers and manufacturers. They want an armed too the teeth America. But, what do we really need in the way of guns for protection? My friend Randy Vining asks this question. Here is his post on the subject that I’ve copied with his permission.
HOW DEADLY SHALL WE ALLOW A CITIZEN TO BE?
Posted: 31 Oct 2013 05:06 PM PDT
FOUND: A GUN ENTHUSIAST WITH THE COURAGE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Ask your gun loving friends this question and watch them turn cowardly—hem and haw—wiggle and lie, evade and accuse. Almost none of them have the courage to confront this question rationally. But I found one—Here he is:
He was having his morning coffee—I asked the question—expecting the usual evasiveness. BUT SURPRISE:—he answered succinctly and un-defensively: SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. And he added: There is no legitimate need for automatic weapons. (other than military)
I had stopped to photograph this provocative sign. He told me people stop often with their cameras.
In Prescott, Arizona—
This may be the biggest gun store in Arizona—
a veritable supermarket of deadliness.
RANDY PHILOSOPHIZES: I salute this brave man—did you notice he is carrying a sidearm? (Arizona has perhaps the most permissive gun laws) He operates this store.
I think I agree with his answer—-at least for now—It seems a reasonable middle ground between too much and too little—and until so many mass murders occur that it will seem logical to begin restricting them—as happened in Australia. I feel safe in Canada because they have so seriously restricted firearms.
Twice in 8000 nights of boondocking I have felt comforted by my weapons—outside Sheridan, Wyoming In a lonely place– 4 (drunken?) Indians roared up yelling and began to rock my rig. I was not afraid–because I was armed—and they soon went away.
More seriously, in Lafayatte, La I was accosted by a carload of angry blacks–yelling and cursing me for some supposed traffic infraction. I apologized profusely several times—not knowing what I had done—while just out of sight I held my equalizer. Luckily they did not attack.
All in all my guns have caused me more trouble than they are worth. In Concord, Massachusetts the cops took my weapon—disassembled it and gave it back the next day.
I DON’T KNOW HOW RANDY’S EXPERIENCES STACK UP AGAINST ANYONE ELSE’S, BUT HE ECHOES MOST OF THE PEOPLE I’VE TALKED TO AS DOES THIS GUN STORE OWNER. SEMI- AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR PROTECTION. THEY HAVE ONE PURPOSE, NOT HUNTING, NOT PROTECTION, THEY ARE FOR KILLING.
Randy writes an interesting blog: Here is his address:
It’s seems there may be some hypocrisy in Randy’s post since he is a gun owner who “felt comforted by my weapons” and then says “All in all my guns have caused me more trouble than they are worth.”
I wonder how much the guns were worth to him on those two occasions when he felt comforted … because… “just out of sight I held my equalizer?” Has he forgotten?
Randy doesn’t say if any of his weapons are semi-automatic but even if they weren’t I guess he felt deadly enough with what ever equalizer he held just out of sight.
He seems to imply he has decided to give up his ‘weapons” but doesn’t come right out and say it. So is he going to hold on to his deadly equalizers? I don’t know. I’m confused.
I’m not sure why Randy talks about the gun store owner in his post since it didn’t make his point one way or the other. I guess that’s because Randy didn’t actually make a point in his post.
How deadly shall we allow a citizen to be?
I object to the implication that because a citizen is a gun owner he is deadly. That is preposterous and an insult.
I am not deadly, not in spirit or in action, nor is anyone I know. That fact is regardless of owning firearms. It is difficult not to feel insulted by people who make that assumption of me under any circumstances. I feel sorry for Randy if he feels deadly because he owns firearms. And he is being hypocritical if that’s the case.
No one ask the question, “how deadly shall we allow a citizen to be?” when a mad man deliberately drives his car into a crowd of people. No one thinks a citizen is deadly simply because he owns and drives his car. It would be preposterous to suggest we should all be required to drive horse-drawn carriages because that would surely limit a citizen’s deadliness when driving into a crowd.
To believe there is any difference between deliberately killing people with a car and killing people with a firearm is just as preposterous.
Mary, I’m confused by your last paragraph… The one in ALL CAPS.
In your last paragraph you say “THE PEOPLE I’VE TALKED TO AS DOES THIS GUN STORE OWNER — SEMI- AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.”
It’s clear to me when reading Randy’s post the gun store owner drew the line BETWEEN semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons. Semi for citizens and full for military.
That was an easy answer for the gun store owner because that’s is already the law. With few exceptions citizens are restricted to owning semi-automatic firearms. I noticed many such firearms on the racks in the photo of his store.
It’s seems either you miss-typed or you do NOT agree with the gun store owner. Or you do not understand what makes a firearm a semi-automatic. In any case, I’m confused.
I’ve understood from your previous posts that you don’t believe citizens should own firearms of any kind. Am I wrong about this? Your post didn’t make it clear just where you draw the line on how deadly a citizen should be allowed to be.
Unlike Randy, and I suppose you, I don’t know any gun owners who would deny that firearms are designed to kill. Which is why I was taught strict firearms safety from an early age and still practice what I was taught at age 65.
While firearms are designed to kill they can be used otherwise. I’ve spent many enjoyable hours at the shooting range plinking at targets with no killing committed. Ask someone to take you to the range. You may find you enjoy target shooing too. I guarantee you will come away more knowledgable.
Even though they are used offensively, I believe firearms were actually designed to kill in self defense. That’s the a reason even Randy calls his firearm an equalizer.
I was also taught, live by and taught my child and grandchildren the principle that just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. This principle applies to all aspects of my life including owning and using firearms. So, I have never used my firearms to kill anything. People or animals. I am not opposed to hunting I’ve just not had the need or desire to do so.
Killing is not in and of it’s self murder. Murder has it’s own definition apart from killing. If one kills while driving drunk I would call it murder. If a driver kills another due to some type of accident most people would not call that death murder.
If someone kills another in self defense, using any weapon, most people would consider the death justifiable. Certainly the law does. I am not opposed to killing in self defense. I you are that’s your choice but please don’t impose your choice on me.
Thanks for thinking so little of me, (and people in general I would suppose) that you believe just because I own one, my first though in a bad situation would be to use a gun and kill someone. If using a cellphone to make a fake call to the police will run the drunks off I’m all for it. And anything else short of deadly force that will work.
However, if the drunks turn out to be bad guys with guns I don’t want to rely on a cellphone, ice pick and baseball bat for my protection. Not when mine or Fran’s life is in the balance.