View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2008
TSGracchus TSGracchus is offline
Secretary of Defense

 
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,199

   
Re: More Gun Owners Use 2nd Amenedment to Kill Themselves

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't ban guns altogether, I believe we can remove the word "outlaw" from our discussions along these lines. Right? Nobody's talking about "outlawing" guns (or sleeping pills, etc.). That would be unconstitutional. Well, maybe not the sleeping pills . . . Anyway, there's been enough paranoid knee-jerking from the gun culture on the subject of "outlawing" guns, which was never going to happen because the political will didn't exist, but now that we know for sure that's not going to happen perhaps we can achieve a greater degree of rationality. You think?

The question is not one of law but one of wisdom. Is it a good idea to keep a gun in your house? Sure, you've got a legal right to do it; you've got a legal right to stay drunk all the time, too, but that doesn't make it smart.

The ease with which a gun can be used to kill oneself, or to kill a family member if one is messed up or really pissed off, argues against it being a good idea. A man can have a perfect grasp of gun safety procedures and be in very little danger of killing anyone accidentally, but then he finds out his wife is cheating on him with his best friend. What does he do?

Hopefully, he either works it out and forgives her or he divorces her peacefully. But even someone who ultimately does that is going to feel, at least briefly, the powerful desire to kill her -- or her lover -- or himself -- or all three. The great majority of homicides are of this nature, not involving professional criminals at all.

Say he decides to off the bitch. He'll regret it later, and given time to think he'll change his mind. He's not a monster. But right now, he wants her dead. There are lots of ways he could do it. He could do it with a kitchen knife, or a baseball bat, or a hammer, or even his bare hands. Or, if he has one, he could do it with a gun.

Let's say he doesn't have a gun. The decision is made to kill his wife. He goes into the kitchen, pulls out a big butcher knife, and goes after her. She sees him coming. She runs for the door. Does she make it, or does he plunge that knife into her back before she can get out? Seeing her running for the door, does he stick with his anger long enough to stab her to death before she makes it out, or do second thoughts prompt him to hesitate, letting her go? Uncertain. Could go either way.

If he has a gun, though, he's more likely to pull that, click off the safety, and go after her. Less likely she'll make it to the door. Less chance he'll have second thoughts as she runs, because it's quicker and easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone. That's why a gun is better than a knife for home defense, and the same reason applies to murder.

Remember, now, the court has spoken, so nobody's talking about taking anyone's legal right to own firearms away. The only question here is this: given that you have the right to have a gun, is it really a good idea? I was married for ten years to a violent woman, someone who regularly tried to beat me up. Mostly we're just talking punches and kicks, but on a couple of instances she picked up something handy and threw it at me.

We never had a gun in the house. I am alive to write this message, and she is out of prison, for that reason. I'm quite certain of it.
Reply With Quote