From the Kansas City Dear Abby:
DEAR ABBY: My parents told me that a member of their congregation carries a licensed gun when he’s in church. He is not a law enforcement officer or a private security guard but keeps the gun on him “for protection.” When I asked what the pastor has to say about this, I was told, “He doesn’t know or can’t do anything about it.”
I suggested that Mom and Dad speak to the congregation board of directors because they are legally and financially responsible for the church. They refused, even though they are not happy about this gun issue.
My parents have a long history of complaining about things but doing nothing to resolve them. I feel that if someone needs to carry a gun at all times, I don’t want to be in his presence. If he’s the target of an assassination, the killer might shoot the wrong person. I will not set foot in the church as long as that man is there.
I’m not sure what bothers me more — that this man is packing heat or that my parents have valid concerns and won’t speak out. What do you think? — Gun-Shy in N.Y.C.
DEAR GUN-SHY: If the man has a license to carry the gun, then he is breaking no laws. You are certainly within your rights to refrain from being in his presence. If your parents were really concerned about their safety, they would either talk to the pastor or go somewhere else to worship. They have done neither, so you should let it go.
I like the part which says, "I feel that if someone needs to carry a gun at all times, I don’t want to be in his presence." Although the writer didn't elaborate, I feel the same way and probably for the same reasons.
What's your opinion? Do you think is some cases the desire to be armed at all times is an indication of hidden problems? I'm not talking about people who make late-night deliveries in North Las Vegas or downtown Newark. I'm talking about the folks who go about their normal daily lives with guns, the supermarket, the local park, church.
Recently someone told us that almost all the crime was gang and drug related, which means for a non-gang and non-drug person going about their normal business, the chances of needing a gun are practically non-existent. In fact, studies have shown (you can look them up if you like) that over the course of a normal gun owner's life, he won't need the gun even once.
But, over a lifetime of carrying the gun, multiplied by the increasing number of folks who carry, chances of guns being misused are great.
For this reason I agree with the writer, Gun-Shy in NYC. People who feel they need to be armed at all times are dangerous. They've already demonstrated a problem in their rational thinking by coming to the decision to carry. Should we trust them to make other decisions, lightning fast ones which involve peoples' lives? No, we shouldn't.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
People who are afraid of being near others with a statistical likelihood of committing crime a tiny fraction of an average citizen have a much worse flaw in their rationality.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, this person may have a point if the permitted individual is influential and politically connected enough to obtain a permit in NYC. After all, those politicians are regularly seen with several armed guards.
"But, over a lifetime of carrying the gun, multiplied by the increasing number of folks who carry, chances of guns being misused are great.
ReplyDelete...
People who feel they need to be armed at all times are dangerous.
"
This is contradictory to the fact that despite a recent gun sale and concealed carry boom, gun deaths are down.
"People who feel they need to be armed at all times are dangerous. They've already demonstrated a problem in their rational thinking by coming to the decision to carry. Should we trust them to make other decisions, lightning fast ones which involve peoples' lives? No, we shouldn't."
ReplyDeleteSo then you favor the disarmament of the police? They feel the need to be armed at all times so that makes them dangerous? Do you trust them to make lightning fast decisions that involve people's lives? Don't they commit crimes the same as non police? Isn't it the availability of the gun that "causes" gun crime?
I feel that if someone needs to carry a gun at all times, I don’t want to be in his presence.
ReplyDeleteHe needs to STFU and deal with it, or find a new church.
Writer to Dear Abby: "If he’s the target of an assassination, the killer might shoot the wrong person."
ReplyDeletemikeb: "I feel that if someone needs to carry a gun at all times, I don’t want to be in his presence."
I have heard that author Salman Rushdie employs an armed bodyguard. mikeb, if you were at an event and noticed author Salman Rushdie in the audience, would you leave? The writer to Dear Abby would.
I have heard that author Salman Rushdie employs an armed bodyguard. mikeb,
ReplyDeleteActually, he doesn't.
--JadeGold
MikeB: “In fact, studies have shown (you can look them up if you like) that over the course of a normal gun owner's life, he won't need the gun even once.”
ReplyDeleteHere you say an individual is statistically unlikely to need a gun over the course of their life. I agree. But then you go on to make your case against carrying by saying the chances of misuse are great when multiplied by the increasing number of CCWs (applying the misuse to the collective):
MikeB: “But, over a lifetime of carrying the gun, multiplied by the increasing number of folks who carry, chances of guns being misused are great.”
Reality is the individual is also unlikely to ever misuse the gun over the course of their life, and collectively unarmed people are murdered everyday.
I have heard that author Salman Rushdie employs an armed bodyguard.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold: "Actually, he doesn't."
Salman Rushdie's Life on the Run
August 07, 1989|GLENN FRANKEL
The Washington Post
LONDON — While their captors play with the lives of the hostages in Lebanon, another hostage to Islamic fundamentalism remains on the run, living underground in a prison without walls, serving a sentence with no end.
Author Salman Rushdie has not been seen publicly since British police bundled him and his wife into a car and sped off from their north London home on Feb. 14, following a death threat from Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Since then, friends say, they have been moved at least 56 times and are never alone, always in the presence of at least one armed bodyguard.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-07/news/vw-188_1_salman-rushdie
FWM asked, "So then you favor the disarmament of the police?"
ReplyDeleteNo I think police should be better screened and better trained. I don't think that makes them a higher class of citizen, though.
TS, I could have made it clearer. I meant over the course of his lifetime, the typical gun owner will not need the gun to save his life. But, over that same period, accidents and theft and misuse are likely to occur.
MikeB: “But, over that same period, accidents and theft and misuse are likely to occur.”
ReplyDeleteNope. Most gun owners will go through life without any of those things happening either.
MikeB: “In fact, studies have shown (you can look them up if you like) that over the course of a normal gun owner's life, he won't need the gun even once.”
ReplyDeleteYes, the chances of being the victim of a violent crime might be low, but they are NOT zero.
Chances are that you will never be involved in a car crash severe enough that without a seatbelt you would not survive. But does that stop you from clicking your seatbelt every time you get into a car?
Chances are that your house will never burn down. But does that stop you from keeping a fire extinguisher in your home?
Gun owners buy a firearm hoping that they never have to use it, just like you hope you never get into a serious car accident or that your house never catches fire.
Justin, Welcome, thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteYou should check out some of my posts on meteorite strikes.