Dear David Codrea,
Thanks for the link to your blog. I've heard from a couple of your readers who sent me the link suggesting that I am sexually inadequate and want to take away the guns of my sexually superior brethren so that we can all be emasculated equals. And yes, I did hear from some less articulate gun owners who say that we need to have guns to keep black men from raping our womenfolk.
OK. So how did that old lady having a gun improve her situation? That is the only point I made about her situation. So tell me how she was better off because she had her .22.
It's irresponsible for me to keep a gun for home protection as I have children who should not be entrusted with life-and-death decisions. But if I did want to protect myself, I'd have a shotgun that would increase my odds of hitting an intruder and decrease my odds of killing some child in the apartment next door. And I certainly wouldn't mindlessly defend people who want military weapons that aren't good for hunting or home protection.
In the situation you mentioned, would you have been better off if more people had been carrying guns? Had I stumbled upon the scene and saw you brandishing a gun at some fleeing young people, would I have the right to assume you are a threat and pull out my gun. Might a call to 9-1-1 have had a similar effect?
The NRA is not about "rifles." It is a shill for the gun manufacturers who are willing to use fear as the fuel to market guns.
Thanks for the dialog.
Sincerely,
Burt Constable
Dear Burt Constable,
The point you're missing is that one of the roles traditionally assumed by American males is that of protector--of themselves, their families and their communities. By your own words, you declare yourself hopelessly inadequate to the task. And nice try playing the race card--it's not we Second Amendment activists disparaging the right of
all peaceable people to keep and bear arms--it's you. Still, should someone of
any color decide to rape
your "womenfolk," exactly what would you be prepared to do about it?
And no, that's not "the only point" you were making. Your lead sentence:
A handgun is not some useful tool that offers its owner safety and piece of mind
extrapolates a specific anecdote into a generality, and then you call in Joan Burbick to bolster that thesis at the national level. So try that sleight of mind on someone who's not watching.
No one has ever claimed that a gun will always help in all specific instances--particularly when massive police criminality is involved. That would just be foolish. But so, too, is taking one specific case and applying it to all potentialities, and the fact remains--which you have avoided responding to--guns in private hands are used to save lives and deter violence, and removing them from private hands enables predators.
It's irresponsible for you
not to keep a gun in the home. Your thesis here is that all homes with children must be defenseless. That, of course, is exactly backwards. The most precious lives, the ones that trust us for everything, are the ones we have the greatest responsibility to protect. Children can be taught to safely coexist with firearms. Millions do. It's all a matter of age-appropriate training, and of course, responsible parenting. It's the anomalies that get the headlines.
Your most telling statement is "If I did want to protect myself..."
What the hell? But then, it's clear you don't. You're not up to the responsibility.
As for your choice of theoretical home defense tool, yeah, shotguns can work well under certain situations, but there's no reason for a trained person to decrease their chances of survival by limiting their tactical options. And you may not "mindlessly defend" people who wish to use "military weapons that aren't good for hunting or home protection," but that statement is pretty mindless in its own right. First, you're falling right into
Josh Sugarmann's plot to deceive the ignorant and weak-minded by confusing semiautomatic firearms with full-blown machine guns, but secondly--what in the world are
your qualifications for offering such an assessment? Would you like to try shotgun vs "assault weapon" in a "home protection" situation and test your theory? And since when is the Second Amendment about hunting?
As for the dgu situation I related, I have no doubt I made the right choices that night. Your second-guessing and dithering, and (Jesus, did you really recommend this?)
Dialing 911 is just a hoot.
It's obvious, Burt, you've been indoctrinated with sound bites and have neither the curiosity nor the intellectual honesty to examine what are, in fact, superstitions you've bought into. But that won't stop you from passing yourself off to your readers as an informed and authoritative voice to be heeded, which is their problem--and yours. Because those of us who know better consider you a fraud--and not a very skillful one at that.
Still, I'd like to leave you with one last challenge.
Go rent the movie "
In Cold Blood." Gather the family around so they can watch it with you. You can stop after the scene where the killers have bound and executed the helpless Clutter family, and then explain to everyone why the Daddy was powerless to protect any of them so that the bad men could execute them all.
And I'll even save you the need to give everyone excuses about safety, and guns and kids, and all the other reasons why you have chosen to be disarmed, which as
Machiavelli observed, is "to be contemptible." Simply hold their hands, look them in the eye and say:
Mommy won't let me.
And if you really want to assert your prowess, you can promise to hit any home intruders with Joan Burbick's book.
Yeah, Burt. Thanks for the dialog.
Sincerely,
David Codrea
RELATED:"
Kathryn Johnston's Gun to Blame for Her Death"
"
Burt Constable Replies"
