By
Jackson Rohrbaugh
March 4, 2008
The solution to the recent wave of violence in the U-District may be a proactive one. Our fellow students are getting pounded with hammers, robbed at gunpoint, punched in the face, antagonized and accosted. We are consequently forced to fear unseen assailants who would seek to harm us. In the dark of the U-District night, can you really walk without wariness and trepidation? Our well-being is at risk, and we must do something to remedy it. We must be responsible for our safety.
Imagine getting an e-mail from the UW Police Department that read like this: “A 20-year-old female student was walking home late last night, down a dark dilapidated alleyway that she should have avoided, when out of the shadows came a suspicious male in a hooded sweatshirt, demanding her purse and brandishing a monkey wrench. She ran, and he gave chase. But suddenly, a cadre of nine mixed-gender students appeared out of the alley’s dark corners and intercepted the assailant. He was promptly waylaid, walloped and fustigated by the students, who were armed with cudgels and staves. The purple-clad posse disappeared into the night after seeing the girl safely home. After an anonymous tip, the assailant was apprehended the next morning. He was found in a dumpster, covered in honey, ketchup and pigeon feathers.”
I wish this was the way every criminal attack turned out, but it’s not the case. We have to avoid walking alone because muggers feel they deserve our hard-earned money.
When I walked home one late night last week, the only weapons I had were groceries. To stop an assault, I would have had to stun an attacker with a well-pitched tuna can, and then incapacitate them by force-feeding them vanilla yogurt. It would have been humiliating to the criminal, but extremely unlikely. I don’t know if I have what it takes to dish out culinary justice.
I’m considering getting a firearm, or at the very least a knife. I need a means of defending myself that doesn’t involve glib remarks, which aren’t very funny to gun-toting bandits.
An armed citizenry can have a debilitating effect on criminal activity. In 1966, the Orlando Police Department sponsored firearm-training programs for women in response to a drastic increase in the rapes and violent crimes that year. By 1967, rapes had decreased by an astronomical 88 percent, according to a 1983 article from Law & Policy Quarterly. The programs were publicized in the city, and this deterred criminals who were aware of the widespread arms training. It was a well-informed and trained populace that spurred a decrease in crime.
I do not advocate an army of rifle-toting Huskies to police the streets, although it would be fun to read about criminals getting their just deserts while terrorizing the innocent. But there’s nothing wrong with responsible individuals taking steps to protect themselves. This includes owning a firearm, taking safety courses and understanding proper self-defense and reasonable force measures as defined by our state and federal laws.
A concealed weapons policy on campus could be necessary. After the chilling shootings that have taken place at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech, many advocacy groups have sprung up to encourage student firearms rights, such as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. An armed and smartly trained student body would be a tremendous deterrent to a glory-seeking killer. What if the next college massacre was averted by an armed student or teacher? If it saved even one innocent life, it’d be worth it.
Last December, an armed civilian stopped a gunman’s rampage at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The civilian was trained in safe handgun usage and possessed a concealed weapons permit. Further tragic bloodshed was halted by an informed citizen and not by waiting for police to respond.
Police are not even obligated to protect us. The case Warren v. District of Columbia states that police are “not generally liable to victims of violent criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.”
Although we have increased police patrols in our neighborhood, and more attention diverted to seeking out suspects of violent crimes, it doesn’t serve as a strong enough deterrent to potential criminals.
In Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals, Peter Kasler argues that it is “a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.”
You are ultimately responsible for your own protection. No increase in campus patrols, police officers, or neighborhood cameras is going to stop a criminal who has firmly decided to rob or harm you.
But criminals who are afraid for their own safety won’t act with impunity. How can we deter them? We could uphold Suzzalo Library’s gothic aesthetic by decorating it with the heads of crooked and evil men. We could execute by firing line in Red Square to boost the plaza’s totalitarian charm. But in lieu of being barbaric, we should know our rights, understand the law, and carry weapons if necessary. Do your duty to protect yourself and challenge the fear that pervades our neighborhood.
[Reach columnist Jackson Rohrbaugh at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
34 Comments
#1 Trip Volpe
on March 3, 2008 at 11:09 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Well, I would say that the article's title is a little misleading - it's certainly not "vigilante justice" to protect oneself from harm, though the "vigilante" bits are obviously tongue-in-cheek. ;-)
Excellent article, though; responsible, competent, and armed citizens are benefit to everyone's safety, and I would like to see more of them.
I definitely think UW's policy against carrying on campus needs to go. It's an outdated (and unconstitutional) relic from a more naive time; several decades of such policies nationwide have shown us how irrelevant they really are. The state of Utah has allowed students to carry at public colleges and universities since 2006, and so far they've had no reason to regret it.
Granted, the first line of personal defense should always be to exercise discretion in where you find yourself late at night; it's foolish to go looking for trouble, even if you have a gun. But if you're willing to accept the great personal responsibility that goes with buying a gun and learning how to use it safely and responsibly, more power to you! Not to mention, shooting is a very enjoyable hobby as well; I think everybody should try it at least once, even if they have no desire to buy a gun. :-)
P.S: For those not familiar with Warren v. D.C., the gist of it is that several women were raped and assaulted for 14 hours in their own home by intruders after they had called 9-1-1 for help; police simply drove by the house and left without investigating. The women sued the D.C. police for failing to protect them, but the D.C. Court of Appeals denied their claim, saying the police had no specific duty to ensure their safety.
Now, despite the actions of a small number of bad or lazy cops, most police officers would definitely put their lives on the line to help those in need; the bigger issue is that it's just impossible for them to be everywhere at once; they can help improve community safety as a whole by bringing criminals to justice and conducting routine patrols, but the fact is that nearly all assaults will be over long before the police have a chance to respond. In the end every individual is responsible for his or her own safety.
#2 Jason
on March 3, 2008 at 11:18 p.m.(Spokane, WA | Unverified Name)
All students should do themselves and their peers justice by visiting the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website at www.concealedcampus.org.
I am not a student, but I do support responsible students in their efforts to protect themselves and others at school.
We all need to pay attention to state legislation regarding this, because it is up to us to defend our rights to protect ourselves.
#3 Mainsail
on March 4, 2008 at 8:16 a.m.(Lakewood, WA | Unverified Name)
If you were backpacking; seven miles from the trailhead you spot a man with only a camera, no water, no food, no map or compass. He bums some water and snacks from you and your party before heading off to take more pictures. Several days later you’re at work and you hear that Search & Rescue is now looking for that very same man; one of the volunteers even dies during the search. You would be outraged at the lack of preparedness of the photographer. Someone died because another was foolish enough to believe he wouldn’t get lost, and did nothing to make himself ready for such an occurrence. Are you any less the fool to be unprepared for violent crime? You carry a spare tire in the trunk of your car to be prepared for the minor inconvenience of getting a flat tire, good for you. What are you doing to prepare yourself and your family for the mortal threat of a robber or rapist? You have a cell phone with which to call the police? Do you think the rapist is going stand there humming the theme of Jeopardy while you call?
Like it or not, you, and you alone, are responsible for your safety. There are many layers to preparedness: lessening the risk by planning your route around campus, walking with friends, making sure someone knows where you are and when you’ll be back, and, if it comes to it, having the training, mindset, and means to protect yourself. Like the hiker, your preparedness plan should not be solely dependant the expectation that others less cowardly will come and die to rescue you.
#4 John Hardin
on March 4, 2008 at 8:38 a.m.(Lynnwood, WA | Unverified Name)
Jackson:
While the term "vigilante justice" is apparently used tongue-in-cheek in your essay, it does a grave disservice to those people who engage in responsible carry - concealed or open - for self defense. It perpetuates association of that blatantly negative image with responsible carry, and thus leads to a greater degree of reflexive disapproval among those who are not aware of the true nature of responsible carry. Making it more necessary to dispel that image before being able to educate a layman about the true nature of responsible carry makes creating general acceptance of responsible carry that much harder.
Otherwise, good essay!
#5 Jason
on March 4, 2008 at 9:46 a.m.(Spokane, WA | Unverified Name)
To John Hardin,
I couldn't have said it better.
#6 PatchO
on March 4, 2008 at 11:51 a.m.(Mountlake Terrace, WA | Unverified Name)
Great article, and great comments to follow!!
Personal protection and saftey should be left to us asw indiviuals, not dictated by the state and Fed.
I protect myself while at home and out and about......students on campus should be afforded the same right.
#7 Sean
on March 4, 2008 at 1:19 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Self defense and the defense of others in response to an imminent threat of grave bodily injury is NOT vigilante justice. It is what reasonable people do when faced with such a situation and is not more than the amount of force needed to end such a threat. The critical point is that reasonable people must have reasonable means to protect themselves. When defending from an armed attacker, having a weapon of one's own is more than reasonable.
#8 Joshmmm
on March 4, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.(Mercer Island, WA | Unverified Name)
With the exception of the title, this is hands down the BEST article ever published in the daily. Good for you for having the courage to write and publish the truth--even when it may be contrary to stance of the publisher of your paper.
Imagine if Rebecca Griego was able to protect herself last year in her office...
Imagine if, the president of Virginia tech, instead of making the comment in the Virginiah leglistlature that he supports a gun ban because he wants his students to "feel safe" had instead realized that "feeling safe" and "being safe" are very different--with the second obviously being FAR more important than a warm and fuzzy feeling.
The UW already had its wakeup call. A bill was sponsored this year in Olympia to change this rule (SB 6860). It was killed in committee; write to your legislators and encourage them to support a similar bill next year to allow WA students the right to protect themselves!
#9 William
on March 4, 2008 at 4:05 p.m.(Baton Rouge, LA | Unverified Name)
Besides the title, this was a very well written article.
The police provide a great service, and do a wonderful job. They also can't be everywhere at once, and college students should be able to defend themselves on campus just as they can off campus.
#10 LR
on March 4, 2008 at 4:06 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
An interesting article, the problem is I'm not entirely sure that I'm comfortable with everyone determining for themselves whether or not they are suitable (read: properly trained, mentally stable enough) to carry a gun onto campus.
#11 Trip Volpe
on March 4, 2008 at 4:38 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
LR, yours is a concern shared by many, but it is not substantiated by any observation of real-world events.
The same students who would carry on campus already have the right to do so everywhere else; in fact, every citizen aged 21 or older (who is not a convicted felon nor adjudicated mentally incompetent) has the right to determine for themselves whether they are suitably competent to carry a gun.
This doesn't cause any problems on our city streets - indeed, far from the epidemic of accidental deaths and previously sane people flipping out and opening fire over small disputes (as is occasionally predicted by opponents of personal carry), it seems that all the problems are caused by people who had criminal intent in the first place. Why would things be any different when a person walks across the imaginary line separating the campus from the rest of Seattle?
#12 BN
on March 4, 2008 at 5:11 p.m.(Benton City, WA | Unverified Name)
Well, the problem is many of the school shooters would fit that description (aged 21 and older who is not a convicted felon nor adjudicated mentally incompetent). Unfortunately, their true mental status doesn't usually surface until after they've commited a terrible crime.
#13 Trip Volpe
on March 4, 2008 at 5:18 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
That is unfortunate, but what can we do? In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and most certainly innocent before they actually commit a crime.
Again, though, people like that won't be stopped by "gun free zone" policies.
#14 joshmmm
on March 4, 2008 at 5:24 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
BN,
These school shooters are intent on murder, right? In fact, usually murder/suicide, right?
Thus, if a shooter were to kill 32 people, we would presumably sentence him to 21 life sentences or 21 death sentences, right?
What you are suggesting is absolutely against all logic.
Why, BN, would a criminal who is intending to die or to serve many life sentences care about adding a few extra days to his sentence? Is a chage of 32 counts of aggravated first degree murder not enough? Would we create more deterrence by charging: 32 counts aggravated first degree murder, 1 count carrying a pistol on campus, 1 count disrupting the peace, 90 counts of property destruction (each bullet that hit a wall)? Honestly, would it matter what extra charges the shooter was facing when he was already willing to die and/or spend the rest of his life in jail?
Perhaps, and only in some cases, an armed student body would stop a would be shooter because he would realize he might get no notoriety if he was shot as soon as he began shooting and wasn't able to kill 32 victims and instead was only able to injure 1. Would this stop all shootings? doubtful. Might it stop some, possibly. While this would be nice, the biggest benefit is that students would not have to throw textbooks but could instead return fire against a crazed lunatic.
#15 joshmmm
on March 4, 2008 at 5:25 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
sorry I mistakenly typed 21 twice instead of 32...
#16 Rattlesnake
on March 4, 2008 at 5:29 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
BN,
"Well, the problem is many of the school shooters would fit that description (aged 21 and older who is not a convicted felon nor adjudicated mentally incompetent)."
I'm not understanding how this is relevant. Are you saying that, because many of the school shooters meet these criteria, anyone who meets said criteria should not be allowed to carry a weapon in their own defense?
A logical analogy would be to say that, because most school shooters have red hair (accept this as fact for this thought experiment), red haired individuals should not be able to protect themselves.
Again, how is the identity of the shooters relevant to being personally responsible for your own safety?
Best regards,
-R
#17 Mike
on March 4, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.(Kent, WA | Unverified Name)
Great article. Don't try to defend yourself with a knife though. A bad guy with a club will take it away from you. As you put it so well, a gun is your best defense. It is to bad Washington State is not more pro active in advocating firearms defensive training programs for all citizens including college students.
#18 Jackson Rohrbaugh
on March 4, 2008 at 9:46 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I appreciate all the feedback. The title was for sensationalism, I do not endorse the idea that protecting oneself is vigilantism, but I do think that (read the first several paragraphs) criminals getting what they are willing to dish out is satisfying to our collective sense of justice. I titled it thus so that more people would read it and think about the ideas, both of the wish for vigilante justice (why doesn't someone just shoot those fools) and concealed carry (maybe one of us should do it!). Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. Does anyone have any negative thoughts?
#19 Mike Stollenwerk
on March 5, 2008 at 3:22 a.m.(Springfield, VA | Unverified Name)
Good news - in WA state it is not illegal to carry guns on college campuses - see http://thedaily.washington.edu/2008/3....
Mike Stollenwerk
OpenCarry.org
#20 K
on March 5, 2008 at 11:59 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I think you have forgotten to highlight other self-defense alternatives to those in the population who do not feel personaly comfortable carrying a gun. What about pepper spray? Or physical defense strategies for when you are being ruffed up? These are the sorts of things that a lot of women are taught to do as self defense rather than carry a gun. Again, if you don't know how to use a weapon correctly, it can be turned on you, as women we undrestand that attackers will often be larger or strong than us, and so we look at other alternatives. Have any men ever had to think of what they would do if they were physicly attacked? As a woman I know that punching (by breaking) the nose, scratching out eyes, and ripping/beating genitiles will protect me in such situations better than a gun would. Violent crimes are more than just what is reported in the U-district people. Don't be close minded that assault or theft is only one thing.
#21 Mainsail
on March 5, 2008 at 1:19 p.m.(Lakewood, WA | Unverified Name)
Every method, including firearms, has limitations. With pepper spray you must be conscious of wind speed and direction. Punching, kicking, scratching, and the like are only going to be minimally effective depending on the size differential, and in all likelihood useless against an attacker armed with a knife. Frankly, if you’re counting on “…scratching out eyes, [or] ripping/beating genitals...” as protection against a knife wielding attacker, you’re dangerously deluding yourself. Yes, you have many alternatives, but among all the available options, only a handgun is capable of leveling the playing field between large (or multiple) attackers vs a smaller you. A concealed weapon permit is easy to obtain, and training is available for free. Training, practice, and familiarity with a firearm will defeat any uneasiness you have towards them.
#22 Trip Volpe
on March 5, 2008 at 1:48 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Mike, I think you may have pasted the wrong URL; that link just goes right back to this page. :-)
Anyway, it's true that there's no law against carry on campuses (and Senate Bill 6841, which would have made it a gross misdemeanor, was decisively squashed in a committee hearing last month), but I think that every school in the state has a policy forbidding it.
The UW Student Code of Conduct is encoded at WAC 478-120-020 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.as...). It specifically prohibits possession of firearms, but it has this very interesting disclaimer in subsection 6:
"(6) Nothing herein shall be construed to deny students their legally and/or constitutionally protected rights."
Since carrying a firearm for personal defense is a right guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution (Article I Section 24), that subsection would seem to render the UW's prohibition null and void, if indeed all such policies of state-run institutions are not unconstitutional prima facie. They were determined to be so in Utah, which has a similar guarantee in its constitution; perhaps that will have to be tested in Washington courts soon, unless of course we get SB 6860 passed in the next legislative session.
#23 S. Blau
on March 5, 2008 at 7:05 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
What Mr. Rohrbaugh is advocating is personal responsibility, a concept lost on a great many citizens at the cost of personal freedom.
Responsiblity must be transferred to another, before that other can excercise authority. If people transfer the responsibility for their safety to the police, they create the duty of providing safety. Once the duty is accepted, the police must be provided the authority. They then have the responsibility, duty and authority, all of which requires they control our activities, whereabouts, speech and possessions.
It never ceases to amaze me that leftists and progressives tend to be anti gun civil rights. Such persons generally shun government control and the concept of the police state. If that's truly the case, I would think they would embrace gun ownership as a tool of personal responsibility and a protector of personal freedom.
Stan
#24 Rattlesnake
on March 6, 2008 at 1:06 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
K,
I think it is wise to recognize that there are other methods of protecting oneself than with a firearm. Having several tools at your disposal to meet different situations is always a smart choice. A firearm in the hands of a lawful and responsible person is simply one tool just like pepper spray or hand-to-hand fighting methods. They have different applications for different problems.
If someone is ever actually <i>in fear for their life</i>....they will want the best tool available to stop that threat.
I agree also that without training a gun <i>can</i> be (though not always) a liability. That is why I advocate training and practice for people who are not familiar with firearms. As Mainsail mentioned, training is readily available and not expensive (free some places.) There are classes taught by women for women, for example at the Firearms Academy of Seattle.
I hope that this discussion has been helpful.
Best regards,
-R
#25 Bear
on March 10, 2008 at 3:46 p.m.(Union, WA | Unverified Name)
Rattlesnake, if you try to stop a Bad guy with a gun, using any other tool but another gun, you will die. I know of about 3 people that can do it and they have training in martial arts for more years than you have been alive. You lack of knowledge in the self defense arena is show how best to get someone killed. I always like to quote my CQC (Close Quauters Combat) training instructor; "If you do like they do on TV or in the movies, you will die!".SHUSTER
#26 Rattlesnake
on March 10, 2008 at 5:48 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
"Rattlesnake, if you try to stop a Bad guy with a gun, using any other tool but another gun, you will die."
I don't disagree. "K" was speaking specifically about other threats than a guy with a gun. I specifically said that there are different tools for different threats. I agree that deadly force is the only reasonable response to a threat of deadly force.
"I know of about 3 people that can do it and they have training in martial arts for more years than you have been alive. You lack of knowledge in the self defense arena is show how best to get someone killed."
Here you make an assumption about how old I am without even knowing who I am. This does not strengthen your case. You also claim that I lack knowledge, but it is your misrepresentation of my post that leads you to that belief. Reread my message and you will find that I have written nothing unreasonable.
Thanks,
R
#27 Russell
on March 15, 2008 at 3:40 a.m.(Toolern Vale, Australia | Unverified Name)
Now I know even as I write this I'm going to cop a pasting for this seeing as just about everyone here seems to be a gun-totting fanatic but...
Has anyone ever considered that instead of solving the problem of violent crime and random shootings by arming everyone so they can shoot them, that maybe you introduce really strict gun laws so very few people (like the people who seriously need them and can prove that they are extremely responsible and not likely to go spastic) can have guns. Then guess what, very few people have guns to run around killing and robbing people so people don't need guns to defend themselves either. Then guess what? Very few deaths. Instead of taking the philosophy of "lets try to set up a situation where the lunatic gets killed before he can do much damage" you set up a situation where "no mass shootings occur and then nobody has to be shot to stop the mass shootings". And for those whiners who think that this would be unconstitutional go read the Constitution because you probably haven't. It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is a relic of a bygone era when America didn't want a professional army but as a result they needed a militia. Wake up guys its the 21st century, not the 18th. And even if you want to blindly believe that something written specifically for the world they were living in can still apply 200 years later (its funny I bet none of you still follow the health procedures from 200 years ago), how many of you march with the Reserves? Probably fewer than the fingers on my hand. The blanket right to carry a weapon is not protected by the constitution and the sooner everyone in America gets that through their heads the happier (and less dead) a great number of people would be.
Now let the hate mail flow.
PS. Since I know there's not going to be anything intelligent said to this I'm not going to read it so feel free to vent any anger you have with anything, its not going to offend anyone.
#28 joeroket
on March 15, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.(Bothell, WA | Unverified Name)
Russell, that idea sure has worked for California, England, and Australia hasn't it. You had better do some research before you type completely incorrect nonsense.
#29 Trip Volpe
on March 15, 2008 at 11:29 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Russell: "PS. Since I know there's not going to be anything intelligent said to this I'm not going to read it..."
Hmmm... If you think you have something worthwhile to say, why aren't you willing to defend your ideas? Instead, you rely on prejudice - but when you preemptively dismiss your opponents as "unintelligent" you expose nothing but your own ignorance.
But I will reply to your points nonetheless, so that others may read and understand even if you will not.
You claim that individuals do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms. This is flagrantly wrong, for a number of reasons which I will explain here.
First, the Second Amendment may cite the need for a militia as its justification, but it still guarantees a "right of the people." If you're going to claim that "the people" means anything other than all individual citizens, you'd better be prepared to give up your rights against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment, since the same language is used there! But since you bring up the "militia" point, you might want to check out 10 USC §311. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/...) Every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 (with some exceptions) is a member of the militia.
But ultimately, if the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution is too vague for you, why don't you look at Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution?
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
That's a bit more explicit, isn't it? Every citizen has the right to bear arms for self-defense. This is undeniable, and legally speaking the Washington Constitution's assurance is more important than that of the federal Constitution on this particular Right. See Amendments Nine and Ten to that latter esteemed document. The federal government is not given the authority to regulate private ownership of arms, so the Second Amendment itself is irrelevant - the people are presumed to have the right to bear arms even in its absence.
This is a key concept, and one that I would have thought anyone who claims to support liberty would understand: the rights of the people are not granted by the government; rather, they are protected against the government.
(Continues below...)
#30 Trip Volpe
on March 15, 2008 at 11:30 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
You are not the first to claim that the right to bear arms is "outdated," and you're every bit as wrong as those who came before you.
Firstly, you mention the need for a militia as stated in the Second Amendment, specifically as opposed to a standing army. But do you understand why the founders opposed standing armies? The answer is simple: because they are detrimental to the liberty of the people. The very reason the people must be armed is to prevent the government from having a monopoly on force. The people must always be a check on abuse of government power, through votes, through activism, and finally through armed force.
For that reason alone, the right to bear arms is every bit as relevant today as it was in 1791. Would you similarly claim that the First and Fourth Amendments are out of date because of the changing times and technology? This is the sort of argument that is used by apologists for the Bush administration to justify the civil rights outrages that have occurred in recent years.
But there is another reason, more immediate to the concerns of each of us as citizens and as human beings. Every person has the right to defend their home, to defend themselves, to defend their family.
In the end, it all comes down to personal responsibility - for that, above all else, is the price of freedom. No person may be denied his or her freedom without due process of law; this, incidentally, is why your idea of restricting gun ownership to those who can "prove" themselves to be sane and responsible would be both absurd and illegal. Attempting to improve the safety of our society is on its face a worthy goal, but it is no longer so when the cost is our liberty. This fundamental principle is the reason I oppose domestic spying, secret incarcerations, and torture, even if these things were every bit as effective as President Bush so arrogantly claims them to be. It is also the reason I have always been and will always be opposed to restricting the citizen's right to bear arms in the name of "Safety."
Either we are free or we are not - if you oppose the idea of guaranteeing the rights of the people against their ostensibly representative government, then say so. Do not hypocritically pretend to defend some individual rights while disparaging others.
It is so very easy to simply call everyone on the other side of the issue a "gun-totting fanatic" [sic], but I think that if you would make a little effort to understand gun owners and our beliefs and opinions, you would find the issue to be far less simple than you naively suppose. But hey, you've already made your decision; you're not going to listen to me, and you're not going to try to educate yourself. I had hoped you would actually join the debate, but perhaps I am being too optimistic.
Respectfully,
- Trip
#31 dq
on March 17, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"just about everyone here seems to be a gun-totting fanatic"
once I read that I stopped taking your words seriously. good job using stereotypes to back up your argument.
and something that I'm not sure if it was mentioned earlier:
concealed carry is exactly that, concealed. people who carry don't wave their guns around and use it to solve issues other that personal protection.
#32 Trip Volpe
on March 18, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Agreed, dq, though I should point out that open carry (i.e., carrying in an unconcealed holster) is legal in Washington as well. Open carriers don't wave their guns around either, though. ;-)
#33 John Hardin
on March 29, 2008 at 10:13 a.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
Russel sez:
> ... you introduce really strict gun
> laws so very few people ... can have
> guns. Then guess what, very few
> people have guns to run around
> killing and robbing people so
> people don't need guns to defend
> themselves either. Then guess what?
> Very few deaths.
...then puts his hands over his ears and starts chanting LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
The "Really Strict Gun Laws" experiment has been tried many places - most notably Chicago, Washington D.C. and the entire island nation of England. If you look at the results honestly, you will see that lots of people still have guns in those locations in violation of the laws, and are still committing violent crimes with them. The only result of these attempts to ban guns is to ensure that law-abiding people are unable to meet gun-toting criminals on even terms, much to their detriment. They still get robbed, the still get killed.
Gun bans do not work. Rather than trying just one more tweak or adjustment that will, really, I promise, stop gun violence this time if we ban them *this* way or for *this* cosmetic feature, just accept it and allow responsible people to arm themselves in their own defense. You will see a reduction in crimes of violence.
Plus, the gun ban fantasy totally ignores the fact that there was an enormous amount of killing and robbing before firearms were invented. Even if you could magically un-invent all firearms, you would just reinstate victimization of the weak by the strong. Is that truly what you want?
In closing:
So far not *one* piece of "hate mail" in response to your post, just a lot of polite, reasoned arguments. It sucks that we're not living up to your stereotypes, doesn't it?
#34 Jim675
on May 27, 2008 at 3:14 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Unfortunately, control always causes a loss of freedom and never gives a corresponding increase in safety.
The government can't stop illegal items from flowing to a willing market. No drugs around campus now that they're illegal, right?
No problem, we just need MORE control. But even in a federal prison the inmates have access to drugs and weapons.
You can't legislate proper behavior. You can only allow free citizens to protect themselves, if they so choose.
Post a comment