Tag Archives: guns

Recent History: Guns Will Not Safeguard Our Freedom

Dear Gun Rights Advocates,

In general, you tend to emphasize personal freedom and liberty and whatnot in your defense of gun ownership–gun ownership is as much a God-given right as breathing or the profit motive. However, you generally have a keen understanding of the principle that individual liberty must be tempered when the human consequences of that liberty are great, so when you are confronted with the negative consequences of large-scale and generally unregulated gun ownership, it becomes necessary to either tone down the gun-ownership rhetoric or show that gun ownership has benefits that outweigh the negative side effects. Of course, the first option is out of the question so your answers, at least in my Facebook feed, to the dangerousness of gun ownership seem to fall into these categories:

  1. There aren’t any real downsides to large-scale societal gun ownership
  2. I need my guns for self-defense against criminals (related: Gun ownership deters crime)
  3. Guns are our defense against tyrrany and loss of constitutional freedom [this one is my focus, here]
  4. Looks like we got ourselves a librul gun control nut on our hands maybe you need a little time at the business end of my .357 to clear your head, if ya knowuttamean. Continue reading

The Wrong Poster Girl

Rukhsana Kauser is my new hero(ine). When the leader of a roaming band of terrorists and some of his thugs barged into her home and started beating her parents, she grabbed a hatchet, surprised the main guy, killed him with his own AK-47,  wounded another thug (with the help of her older brother), and sent the rest fleeing. She killed one of the most wanted men in Kashmir, a leader of one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.

I’ve found this story on the BBC and other international news sites. Since no Americans were killed or heroized, I can’t seem to find it in any American news feeds. However, it is on certain American blogs: gun rights blogs. After the story is summarized or linked, there are comments like “Hell yeah!” or “Tell THAT to the gun control wonks!”

To overused a phrase of the day… wait, what?

How does Ms. Kauser’s story support the cause of personal gun ownership rights in the U.S.? Ms. Kauser did not stop the terrorists with her concealed-carry Smith & Wesson. She did not stop them with her father’s venerated Remington twelve-gauge. The only gun owners were terrorist criminals. The only guns in this story were probably used in numerous horrific crimes before one or two of them were turned on their original owners. I’m a supporter of a “personal ownership” interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but apparently this has not scrambled my grasp of logic to the point where this would make any sense to me.

I suppose maybe the American gun people are arguing that she should have owned a gun, and I could see that point, but then the story ceases being a very good demonstration of either the benefits of gun ownership or the dangers of a lack of such. She defeated the militants without owning a gun, which is not how these pro-gun stories usually turn out. Still, this is perhaps the only argument I could see as supporting U.S. gun ownership. I mean, if we had roaming gangs of terrorists with AK-47s who regularly took over suburban homes by force.

I have a nagging feeling that’s not the real reason this story keeps appearing on gun ownership blogs, though. I wonder if it isn’t just because there’s a potential victim, and then there is gun-related violence done to a Bad Person. Maybe the bloggers and commenters don’t look any farther than that. If this is the case, it says some small little volumes about the mentality of some of our gun-ownership advocates.

Rukhsana Kauser is not a good choice as poster girl for gun ownership advocates. Feminists, on the other hand…