Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Intrafamilial Debate

So I sent an article, The Life and Death Cost of Gun Control over to my Chicagoan cousin Andrew this morning for his perusal, as we have been discussing the merits and demerits of gun control as of late. In response to this article, he sent me the following excerpt via email...


I think its an infringement of my rights to tell me that I NEED to carry a gun to protect myself, I am supposed to be paying people like the police to do that for me. If everyone should have guns, then I should save some tax money shouldn't I?. If I told Fox news that, they would call me "soft on crime."


Ah, the conundrum....

See if your blog followers will support that idea :)


So what have you, fellow readers? What do you think of this idea? Most of you all know my viewpoint on the matter but I (more so, my cousin) am interested in seeing your viewpoints.

Post comments here or on the calguns.net thread referring to this blog post!

UPDATE FROM ANDREW (the cousin)

I have re-read the documents and would like you to post this new quote from me.

"The previous cases you informed me about more than prove your point, and you've convinced me. I agree that police have no duty to protect you as an individual. I need some questions answered though...

How do we stop 4 and 5 year olds from being caught in the crossfire of gang shootings? Obviously they cannot carry guns or protect themselves, and I think we'll all agree that even if these kids are safely in their houses, sometimes stray bullets come through windows and kill them, obviously this cannot be completely blamed on their parents. I would like a solution from the people on this forum that address this problem.

Thanks man,

Talk to you later.


Lets all comment on this one now!

UPDATE: More argument fodder


There is some serious logic missing from the discussion. I'm just asking questions here, and they seem to be crucifying me. Also, I don't live in downtown Chicago. I live in a nice neighborhood with virtually zero crime, and I'm sure not every household has a gun. I love guns, I love the technology, I love the history, I'm not anti-gun by any means.

I'm sure everyone heard the story about the 8 year old who killed his parents and his neighbor with a .22 rifle 2-3 weeks ago. I'm sure that if he didn't have access to that rifle, they would still be alive right now (its a lot harder for an 8 year old to kill his parents with a knife then it is with a gun). Obviously that kid was messed up, and mentally unstable people will always find a way to kill each other, but seriously... it was pretty easy for that 8 year old. I don't think it should be that easy... this is where my questions come from. Incidents like that make me question everyone's right to own a gun. Obviously the parents are the blame for not teaching him and not keeping the gun locked up, but honestly, some parents are as irresponsible as 3-year old, and I wish we could say "alright, all the responsible citizens can have guns, and all the stupid ones can't" but that isn't what people on this forum are advocating.

When you say "everyone should have the right to own a gun" I get confused, because time and time again, we are shown that some people just can't handle it.

How do we differentiate between the people who should have the right and the people who shouldn't?

Sent in a later email...

Second of all, I agree that everyone should have the right, but its just a hard problem to fix ya know? Obviously if innocent people get killed, and cops get shot while trying to defend themselves, there is a problem with our current setup. If the guys on the forums don't believe the system is flawed, then maybe that is where our different paths of thinking emerge from.

You can post it if you want, but obviously I didn't expect to change minds, I just wanted my questions answered, and no one has been able to tell me how to give everyone guns, but keep cops and 4 year olds from being shot to death.

If people on the forum don't think that those deaths are a problem, and that there isn't a problem with guns in this country, then that is where we differ.


Let's keep this topic going. Come on everyone!

5 comments:

D said...

I don't know if your cousin is even reading the article, but it doesn't advocating FORCING him to carry a gun, just allowing people to exercise their own rights. Also, the supreme court decided in CASTLE ROCK, v. GONZALES, that citizens do not have a constitutional right to police protection. 99% of the time police react to crime, they don't prevent it per se.

xrarey said...

Nathan - please post this as an update to your blog/forum thread.

This is cousin Andrew, mentioned in the article.

The comments I made in this blog post were from another conversation with the writer of this blog, not based on that article.

While I understand that the theory is that cops do not protect people, I would like answers to a couple things.

One - why do police still use the slogan of "to protect and to serve"

Two - Hypothetically, if I believe your theory of police not being able and not having to protect myself, what do I pay them for? Do you think I should get some tax money back?

Those are the questions I wanted answered in my original post.

Get back to me.

D said...

Hey Andrew,
The reason police use the term, "'to protect and serve" is because they want people to place their trust in their "monopoly on violence" and pay their salary. Now I'm not saying that there should be less cops on the street. I'm just saying that they are under no constitutional obligation to protect the public. Even under California law, the only service your county Sheriff is only legally obligated to provides search and rescue services, he is not legally obligated to provide any law enforcement duties.
Here's the calguns post on this blog post.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=135486

RMB said...

Cousin andrew,

You really need to go research what you are talking about. Read the Warren v DC case if you think the police are obligated to protect you. Heck in CA read govt code 645, it's the law the police don't have to protect you.

As far as slogans, most people are like you, they think the police are supposed to protect them and it is worth their while to propagate the myth.

If you're not smart enough to do your own research and understand what is going on in the world. I can't help you. Stay in corrupt Chicago, call 911 when you are in trouble and hope the police show up.

RMB said...

On the why do you pay them -- good question -- why do you pay taxes, you don't really get what you think you should.

How old are you by the way. You sound about 15.