Yesterday I took one of those CHL
classes so that it would be legal for me to carry my revolver in my purse or
truck whenever I travel here in Texas. I learned a few things about the laws of
Texas that I had never known before. And, come to think of it, I learned a few
things about the reasons that our country came to respect the rights of its
citizens to “bear arms.”
Everyone has heard the arguments
about disarmament and keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible folks. One
of the first things our instructor told us about those ideas was to make a
comparison of automobiles to guns—they are both tools. We can’t outlaw F150s
because so many die in pickup truck accidents, and by the same token, we can’t
outlaw guns because there are idiots out there using them against others.
Knives, baseball bats, tire irons, or any other handy hammer would be as easily
utilized up close and personal. And my guess is that one of those big Humvees
would be just as deadly as anyone’s .45 revolver.
When our instructor compared our
abilities to protect ourselves against much larger and stronger opponents, it
made sense to the women in the room that we would not stand a chance with a
baseball bat or pepper spray against a man three times our size and strength. The
man could easily take the bat away from us, and the pepper spray might not have
any effect unless it actually hit the person in the eyes. Then too, one man who
had been an MP said that someone hopped up on certain drugs often would be unaffected
by the pain element from pepper spray because of the overriding effects of the
drugs.
Two incidents—go ahead and call them
tragedies—were discussed yesterday. One part of the discussion covered
provocation of violence in regard to the confrontation and death in Florida of
a teenager. Everyone has heard about it by now because of the extreme media
coverage. Again, the long and short of the situation came down to bad decisions
by both parties. But beyond the ‘who did what to whom’ part of the story, too
many people see the right to carry a concealed weapon as the culprit or
determining factor in the mix. The fact is that if the man carrying the gun had
not used it, he would not be around to be standing trial. It brings back the
old saw, “Better tried by twelve than carried by six.”
The second situation is the horror of
slaughter at a movie theater among innocent people who never had a chance to
either defend themselves or–in the case of a three-year-old child—never had the
chance to really live. I seriously doubt that anyone in that theater was armed
except for the insane man who murdered those people. But, if anyone had been
more alert—and had been armed—it is just possible that the number of dead and
wounded would have been greatly reduced. In Texas, it is not unreasonable to
assume that as many as four out of ten men would be armed in almost any setting—theater,
city park, or anywhere that handguns are not prohibited by law. And lately, it
is not a stretch of the imagination to think that one of every ten women in
Texas is also armed. At least, I know two that will shortly have their guns
tucked safely away in a holster in their purses.
One of the reasons that Japan chose
not to bring the war in the Pacific to the actual shores of America was the
fact that they knew our nation was armed to the teeth. Every farmer, every
rancher, and many businessmen were armed with either handguns or sports rifles.
And all of them knew how to use them quite effectively. That was true all over
this nation at that time. And the ownership of guns has increased in most
states since World War II. More folks are members of the NRA now than of AAA.
Recently a treaty or firearm regulation
agreement was supposed to have been discussed at the UN, but like so many other
ideas, a few folks took off with the idea that our president was trying to
totally disarm Americans. The Supreme Court had this to say: District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June
2008: (T)he enshrinement
of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the
table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for
self-defense in the home.
The treaty that Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton said that the administration seeks is one that has “legally
binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons."
Furthermore, the language of the discussion included this: that a provision in
the resolution’s preamble – included at the request of the U.S. –
explicitly recognizes the right of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership
within their borders, including through their constitutions:
UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1,
Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate
internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national
constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their
territory…
FactCheck.org is one of the best places to dispel
rumors and other stupidities that circulate about political or economic
absurdities. Americans are pretty easily convinced of conspiracies and other hoaxes,
unfortunately. But on the other hand, they are also one of the most stubborn
and defensive in the world. Somehow one might have to really stretch the
imagination to even think that America would be as easily disarmed as France or
England or any of the other European nations were before World War II.
According to an article in Time magazine: “Though
it may pale in comparison to America's 88.8 registered weapons per hundred
people, the rate of gun ownership in Europe is higher than one might imagine.
In Switzerland there are 45.7 guns per hundred people; in Finland, 45.3;
France's 31.2 is a little higher than Germany's 30.3. The U.K., which banned
most gun ownership after two massacres, has a rate of 6.2 registered guns per
100 people.”
And
in another publication: Although Norway has far and away the
highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the
lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably
low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria.
Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of
firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has
a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and
Austria.
According
to an article in GOA [Gun Owners of America] of 2008:
Nor
does the "more guns means more murder" belief square with our own
experience. The earliest American figures, dating from just after World War II,
showed both gun ownership and murder rates holding at low levels. Today our
murder rates are almost identical, despite six decades of massive gun buying
whereby Americans have come to own five times more guns than they did in 1946.
The intervening years saw a dramatic increase in murder followed by a dramatic
decrease. These trends had no relationship to gun ownership, which steadily
rose all the while (especially handgun ownership).
Finally, if common sense makes
any difference in life at all, we should all know better than to purposely
provoke someone. But we should also be aware that we need to be able to protect
ourselves and our families from the insanity that seems to run rampant in today’s
society. In a few years I will be too old to handle a gun effectively. At
least, I cannot imagine being able to hold a steady aim. By then maybe I will
get an old-fashioned scatter gun to keep by the bedside table and a big dog to
growl at anyone silly enough to bother me. Until then, I will carry a gun with
me for those situations that just may arise, and I will continue to appreciate
the men and women who have taken this class in order to protect themselves and
others around them.
