I'm going to take this gun control argument
 

one step further. Those of you that are upstanding citizens, with good moral judgment, who believe in a free society free from murder and other crimes....I posit that you have a moral duty to arm yourselves. In order to protect yourself, your families, your community, the constitution, and this country.

Now, I realize not everyone is going to make this choice. But is it wrong for me to have respect for those that are willing to take on this moral burden? Why do some of you shrink from this burden?

Now, I am not advocating machismo, or vigilantism, or anything of the sort. I'm not saying you have to appreciate guns or enjoy the use of them. I'm saying that by arming yourself, you have taken upon yourself a critical duty that our forefathers saw as defense of this country.

Now if you want to be the equivalent of a conscientious objector, that's fine. But please don't criticize those who aren't. Even the justified killing of another man in self-defense is poison to the soul, but we don't recognize the weight of that. The burden of that. Some would rather die, and I can respect that also. But not all of us want to die.

I find both sides of this argument to have merit, and have considered getting a gun myself, but the idea that arming oneself is a moral imperative seems pretty stupid to me. The vast majority of gun violence in this country is related to accidents/convenience, so while defending one's country against an evil government is noble, I'm not paranoid enough to think that the need to do so is more likely to arise than a neighborhood kid accidentally shooting himself with my gun or me shooting myself with it, whether accidentally or not.

Given how lazy people are about fitness, I don't want a bunch of armed citizens who don't know how to aim and operate their weapons. For those conscientious, I'm happy for the Second Amendment, but for our slovenly hosts, please just stay away.

I have two comments:

1. I suspect the rate of accidental shootings is very low among those people that properly store their guns. My guns are all locked away. And quickly accessible as well. But there are a lot of people who either don't care, or can't afford such solutions. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't own a gun.

2. If you think you may be at greater risk for suicide, or if you have a loved one that is at greater risk that also would have access to the arms, this may be a good reason to not own a gun, since it is a recognized risk factor for suicide. If you an old white male alcoholic who is divorced and own a gun and suffer bouts of depression--you are statistically a time-bomb in terms of suicide risk.

But the overall point is that there is always a risk to taking on a moral imperative. And that is why I'm saying why are some of you that are criticizing us that take on this risk, not willing to take on this risk yourselves?

Ok that makes sense. Perhaps my previous post was a function of my general lack of confidence in my fellow humans.

What did you mean by convenience? Accidental shootings are only a very small fraction of the size of intentional shootings.

By convenience, I was referring to violence being much more prevalent when guns are available, the best example being suicide. Those who don't have easy access to a gun or the golden gate bridge are much less likely to kill themselves. I'm sure Waters could back me up on that.

That seems self evident. Probably you won't jump off a skyscraper if you live on a farm in Kansas.

Indeed.

Mike, you'll be happy to know that I have a concealed weapon permit.