guns & purses (was Re: guns & crime)

[Carrol Cox]

The gun argument gets raised to the metaphysical inane by failing to focus
on the *kind* of regulation and the *kind* of guns involved. No "anti-gun"
argument or proposal I know of includes hunting weapons (rifles and
shotguns). And I don't know any serious person (not counting some National
Rifle Association leaders and members in the category of serious person) who
advocates making bazookas or atomic artillery generally available in the
corner market. The debate is essentially over hand guns -- or, more narrowly
yet, over carrying handguns (concealed or unconcealed) in public.

I would be concerned by any proposal to place stingent limits on the
possession of shotguns. I do not own a weapon, but back in the late '60s
when there was some reason to fear vigilante action against me, I did
consider purchasing a shotgun. It is the only useful weapon for self-defense
by anyone not trained in weapons and fearful of such attack in his/her home.
And considering that black communities are under virtual military
occupation, I can see why some black citizens would want to have access to
rifles. However one judges these situations, at least they provide a more
reasonable context for debate than the metaphysical "guns vs. no guns."

As a personal opinon, anyone who keeps a loaded handgun in the house is a
fool. Such a weapon is most apt to be used against some member of the
household.

Carrol

Doug Henwood wrote:


> James Heartfield wrote:
>
> >All the same, I find it hard to believe that you could argue for a
> >disarming of the populace without reinforcing their dependence upon the
> >state.
>
> Unlike anti-gun lefties, I'm not totally immune to this argument, but
> the U.S. isn't an inspiring test case. Is there any more
> depoliticized and alienated populace in the world? Is there any
> ruling class whose rule is stronger and less challenged?
>
> Doug