In a letter to the editor in today’s Keene (NH) Sentinel, Mr. Coey’s reckons that more guns equals more disablement, death and destruction.
The question of gun control is whether more guns make society safer or not.
Many “self-protection” advocates argue that it does, while others take the opposing view. I did some low intensity research, and found that the United States has the highest rate of gun ownership among the industrialized nations, with 40 percent of households possessing a firearm.
Sixty-six percent of murders are committed with a gun, and the U.S. leads the industrialized world in the number of murders committed. If these figures are reliable, then, the notion that the more guns available make our society safer is fallacious.
I think it is a valid exercise of government to protect us from ourselves.
If the larger community did not moderate the individual, social problems would abound with human fallibility given free rein. It is in all our best interest for society to provide an environment that is stable and regulated so that each of us may achieve our potential unhindered by our human tendency toward vice.
Jack Coey
Keene is in New Hampshire.
That's a great article you quoted with no commentary. And the photo is a classic.
Mike,
The photo is a travesty. And a social injustice.
While I would posit that the photo was taken in some backwater regime, it, in no way , represents freedom.
"The question of gun control is whether more guns make society safer or not."
Depending on who you listen to, the answer always seems to be that only peace officers carry guns or that everyone carry guns. I don't believe that we can rely on good citizenry and policing enough to advocate that no one carry guns, but I also don't think that most people will be any more responsible at wielding guns than they are at driving cars, so I hardly want to hand out gun permits to every idiot with a pulse.
Mr. Coey may be winning me over.
If the government could make him STFU I know I’d feel better.
Thomas Jefferson said it best: “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”.
In asserting that it is the US Government’s duty to protect “society” from itself through restricting gun ownership, Mr. Coey argues for the collective versus the individual. In doing so he ignores the fundamental tenets of the United States, which was founded on the idea of the primacy of the individual, not on the promotion of a collective “society”. Indeed, the US constitution is all about proscribed limits on government power over individual liberty, not the other way around.
His argument also ignores human history, which shows clearly that trading liberty for security in the interest of “protecting society from itself” all too often creates the conditions for the worst form of “ends justify the means” tyranny and atrocities against the very society the state purports to protect. It is axiomatic that the more collectivist a society becomes, the worse the government behaves, as the most ruthless, corrupt, and evil of people tend to rise to the top of the political heap.
The results of Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Nazi Germany, the USSR, Mao’s China, North Korea, Castro’s Cuba, Iran, and countless other examples throughout modern history show what happens when people give up their liberty for the mirage of collective “security.”
You are endowed by your Creator with inalienable rights and among them are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, so long as you submit to at least one annual mandatory "health and wellness" check by the appropriate government agency, submit fingerprints for background checks to make sure you aren't a criminal, get the okey-dokey from the FBI Instant Check system, sign your various affidavits, pay the required fees for licenses and permits, and always, always always wear your helmet, no matter what.
But that's not counting if you smoke, enjoy fried foods, or drink more than two alcoholic drinks a week.
Mr. Coey needs to voluntarily submit himself to a psych ward so he can stay there forever.
He just might “feel” safe then.
This isn’t about guns..
I am serious it isn’t…
Jack’s entire artile, and personality which tells me what I need to know is this;
“I think it is a valid exercise of government to protect us from ourselves.”
This means that he will never be happy with Liberty, and Freedom. It frightens him. He can’t bare to be free, and would rather have the government cut his veggies, and meat so he doesn’t accidentally cut himself. You know protecting himself from himself.
“Jack Coey” is an odd way to mis-spell “Winston Smith.”
Good reference. “Do it to Julia!”