(Wherever is, is.) In the course of this ballistic blogging biz, I’ve come across a fair few editorials both pro and anti-gun control. Despite (or because of) the departure of our resident left winger Jeff Puthuff, I’m sensitive to the fact that TTAG needs to present both sides of the equation. Admittedly, I’m not doing well at this fair and balanced stuff. Every time I try to blog a gun control editorial (with only a modicum of snark), I find myself astounded by the logical inconsistencies and the writer’s lack of specific, compelling evidence. To wit: An armed society not a polite society editorial in The Monterey Herald. Vague much? Oh yeah, they vague.
California wisely allows people to carry concealed weapons only if they can establish a clear need, pass a background check and complete a gun-safety course. We have seen the studies that suggest crime decreases when gun laws are loosened, but we are aware of studies suggesting the opposite. We are aware of considerable anecdotal evidence of children killing siblings with daddy’s gun, and fathers killing sons after hearing what sounded like a burglar.
Some police agencies supported Arizona’s move to put more guns on the streets, saying that the cop’s best friend is the armed civilian, but law enforcement officials elsewhere say they fear it will become harder and harder to distinguish between armed criminals and armed passersby.
The debate likely will go on forever. The Constitution may or may not support the idea of an armed nation, a militia of millions. But whether it does or does not, we are not persuaded by the slogan “An armed society is a polite society.” We have higher hopes for our civilization.
I’d settle for polite. But then, that’s me.