Posted on 05/07/2002 9:53:16 AM PDT by 45Auto
I am an unlikely supporter of the National Rifle Association and similar groups. I've not fired a gun in more than 40 years. I dislike hunting intensely and believe all firearms to be symbols of a violent society. But I am also a very practical human being.
I supported the Texas law that allowed concealed handguns. I believe strongly in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment guaranteeing private ownership of guns. But I also hold that such gun ownership comes with responsibility and consequences for one's actions.
Since Sept. 11, my support of gun ownership has only intensified.
What if the pilots or others on those ill-fated planes had been armed? The thought of a gunfight on a high-altitude plane is frightening, but the mere appearance of armed pilots and passengers might have turned things around.
I have always believed that humans are inherently violent creatures. That gives no comfort to those who hope for human progress and enlightenment. But because of the violent nature of man, we must deter violence by armed means.
Police are armed. There are armed forces to deter aggressors and terrorists. In an extension of this argument, why not an armed citizenry as well?
One situation supports my idea of an armed citizenry.
About 10 years ago, a student told me a very frightening tale. She was driving alone on Interstate 30 late at night. A car with two men came up alongside hers. They began hurling insults at her, motioning her to pull over. She looked straight ahead, trying not to make any face-to-face contact. They continued their insults and tried to run her car off the highway. The mere description of it is frightening.
However, she always carried a gun with her, as she had night classes and also worked evenings as well. She pulled the gun from her purse and held it up so the two harassing men could plainly view it. The convincing way she held the gun and her determined look made the men drive off without any confrontation.
She was convinced that without the gun, the men would have forced her off the highway. By the way, she knew well how to use firearms.
Since then, the issue of terrorism has become front and center for us all.
Why not have everyone who is willing, trained and licensed to carry legal weapons be allowed to do so? I would feel more comfortable in public places if I knew that many people there might be carrying firearms and knew how to use them.
True, terrorists bent on suicide might not be deterred, but they might be stopped before their horror could be unleashed. This has happened frequently in Israel and others places plagued with terrorism. If terrorism were to be unleashed in this country, as some predict and fear, an armed and responsible citizenry would be a helpful addition to the fight.
Citizens have a right to defend their bodies, their property and their liberty. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." Responsible people have the right - perhaps even the obligation - of defending themselves, their families and their property from terrorism, foreign or domestic.
We do not live in a pleasant world. Those who are against firearms unjustly and unfairly believe that depriving people of legal firearms makes us safer. They are wrong!
Please know that gun use and ownership is commensurate with responsibility. If anyone using a firearm harms the innocent, that person should be held accountable, swiftly and surely. I have always believed in gun ownership, but the tragic events of Sept. 11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism have bolstered my long-held beliefs considerably.
Allan Saxe is a UT-Arlington associate professor.
No flames coming your way from me. I own a Springfield Armory 1911 and just love it. But, if I was pressed to the wall, and had to choose one and only one handgun that I could keep, it would be my Glock 30.
No it doesn't. But do you doubt that with this right comes the duty to get training. I don't have any problem with the purchase of a firearm being a private matter, but if you're going to carry, concealed or otherwise, you need to be trained and counseled on what is going to happen to you if you shoot someone, even in self defense.
The problem with modern firearms ownership is the anonymity of the possessor. A hundred years ago the people of a town knew who the whacko's were and would boycott a general store that sold a pistol to the town nitwit.
No, with rights come duties, and it is in your interest and in the interest of the 2nd. Amendment, that those who exercise this right seek the knowledge about it.
Welll...sure, if you didn't buy a Stainless Covert when they were available! *grin*
I think it all comes down to the "first rule"- make sure you have a gun!
I love mine. I have to admit, there is probably a lot of shopkeepers that have survived numerous gunfights with a little junk .38.
The only time I don't carry is when I'm working on the car or in the yard.
The author is acting exactly like someone who was just robbed. He still considers the gun as a something to kill people and not as a tool to stop crime. He's also missing out on the heritage, the sport and the fun.
These little "maturity" problems do tend to hold down the practice sessions, so have been practicing weak hand quite a bit. I find that I can now hit a man-size target with a double tap at, say 5 feet! ;o)
What you are proposing has nothing to do with firing a weapon. You're not concerned with muzzle control or hitting your target. You're worried people will not understand you will be sued by any surviving member of this persons family or a bystander who witnessed the shooting. Do people need to know what will happen to you when you fire a weapon to defend your life or the life of another. Hell No! If your life or the life of another was in danger would that knowledge be of any use to you? No!
Nobody needs that type of training. We do need a law that says if someone is committing a violent felony and is killed in the process nobody can sue as a result of that action. We need a law that says if someone breaks you’re your home and you kill them then you get a commendation from the Governor.
Now most semi-intelligent people are going to realize that they can currently be sued in this circumstance but in a life threatening situation what good will that information do them? Are they going to let themselves or others be killed because they may be sued? No!
Yes, I did get the joke. -:) And no, while I am a Glock fan (I've got three of them) I'm not a Glock snob.
On a more serious note, I've found my Glocks to be quite accurate in the 3 - 10 yard range, which is the most common distance of most gunfights involving handguns.
I came to Glocks quite by accident. I went to a local gun store looking for a full size Para-Ordinance P-14. They only had the compact P-10 which felt decidedly uncomfortable in my hand. The salesman just happened to have a Glock 21 in stock and suggested I look at it. Up to that time, I had only heard of Glocks and only then vaguely. Well, the G21 fit like a glove. I bought it on the spot and have loved shooting it -- and my other Glocks -- ever since.
I love the simplicity of disassembly of the Glocks -- a big plus for someone like me who's definitely not skilled at small mechanical tasks. I love the design. I never thought I'd get used to no external safety, but I've come to prefer it. As for accuracy, I've come to be able to put my shots between the 8 and 10 rings up to ten yards. Beyond that, my accuracy decreases accordingly. But then, I bought these guns primarily to be defensive weapons and in that capacity, I've been thoroughly satisfied.
At the same time, I love shooting my Springfield Armory 1911. It has the definitely feel of quality, with accuracy to match. Now I've got the bug to get a compact SA, and a sub-compact SA. If I had to make one choice, it would be the Glock 30, but then, who needs to make a choice. I'd be very reluctant to part with my 1911. And I look forward to getting more.
So many guns. So little money. . . -:)
For that matter, I like every single gun I have. Even the rusty, inaccurate, pathetically underpowered, weird stuff.
One of the most important things I learned about handguns was that they can be incredibly accurate. I had a Taurus 92 that had 10 inch groups at 50 yards. I didn't know that it didn't like lead bullets. I switched to jacketed and it's accurate. I would go to ranges and find that someone couldn't shoot a particular gun and there was usually a reason for it. It's a shame it takes a lifetime to learn all this stuff.
Very rare to see the truth in print like this. I agree with this 100%.
I'm partial to the 30, 10 in the handle, one in the tube. Still like the 1911 as well. Pretty much anything in .45 is fine with me.
Don't name 'em if you're gonna' eat 'em. :^)
Spoken like a true Kalifornia closet liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.