2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,217
- 52,453
- 2,290
this column points out that Ferguson and the rioting and looting disproves at least two anti gun beliefs and reveals them for how silly they are?.
Ferguson's Imaginary Gun Problem
Remember, they believe civilians should not own guns...because civilians are dangerous when armed, and only the government should have,guns...police and military...I think more store owners in .ferguson are regretting that particular idea as the stores who had guns weren't looted...and the stores without guns no longer exist...
Ferguson's Imaginary Gun Problem
Can you imagine what Ferguson would look like if all these demonstrators were armed?
It’s a question that’s popped up in my Twitter feed in various forms over the past few days. And as my colleague Mollie Hemingway has already done a fine job of pointing out, many in the media revealed they have only a muddled understanding of gun rights.
But let’s go with David Frum’s hypothetical proposition, because it brings to mind a few broader points.
Yes, if all protestors had loaded firearms in their hands, the situation would almost certainly have degenerated into a more violent mess. But the fact is protestors could have armed themselves. Mostly, they didn’t. Though there is no way to precisely calculate the number of Missourians that own guns – one Daily Beast report uses NICS background checks numbers to come up with 14,712 per 100,000 residents, which doesn’t include inherited weapons, shotguns, etc. – there are doubtlessly plenty of firearms to be found in St Louis county. Getting your hands on a weapon in Missouri doesn’t seem to be a particularly challenging endeavor.
In this situation, it was the state that behaved as if it had been deployed for war, not the majority of protestors. Most civilians don’t use guns recklessly in these situations (or any, for that matter) for reasons of self-preservation and more vitally – and this may surprise some people – because most people have absolutely no desire to shoot at the police. Even protesting civilians. Even angry protesting civilians.
So a more appropriate observation might be: Isn’t it amazing that in a country with over 250 million guns in circulation, violent political protests are almost nonexistent?[/QUOTE]
Remember, they believe civilians should not own guns...because civilians are dangerous when armed, and only the government should have,guns...police and military...I think more store owners in .ferguson are regretting that particular idea as the stores who had guns weren't looted...and the stores without guns no longer exist...
.We also shouldn’t forget those Ferguson business and home owners who purchased guns which are discouraging the peripheral criminality that almost always arises during these combustible situations. How many lawless acts are preemptively thwarted by the mere thought of a gun being present in a home or a business? How many more police officers would St Louis county need to outfit in camouflage and combat gear if freelancing troublemakers were on the loose?
Obviously, anti-gun advocates don’t believe such deterrence exists. That’s fine because it’s definitely not the best reason for gun ownership
Last edited: