I’ve recently concluded that most Americans shouldn’t be carrying a gun for defensive purposes. They choose the wrong weapon, don’t train enough, don’t do the right kind of training, and remain largely ignorant of gunfighting tactics and legal ramifications. While pre-fight gun safety isn’t much of a concern—common sense is enough to keep most people from pointing a gun’s muzzle at the wrong person and pulling the trigger—I wouldn’t expect the average defensive shooter to hit squat in a gunfight. Even so, I’m OK with poorly equipped, under-trained Americans owning and carrying guns. The collateral damage is spectacular but statistically insignificant. It’s the price we pay, the risk we take, for our individual right to armed self-defense. I understand those who feel gun ownership is too much responsibility for the average American. Personally, I don’t think it’s enough.
People only respond to what they view as necessary. If the OK Corral were an every other weekend sort of occurrence, you bet your average American would be one of the fastest and most skilled gunslingers around.
But it's not. Violence is fairly rare. It is difficult to argue for preparing against a threat which will most likely never happen. A meteor could crash through your home and kill you on the spot. Yet five foot thick steel-reinforced concrete roofs aren't found in any house you may walk into. Why?
Responsibility is a silly argument to make. There is little more responsibility in owning a gun than in owning a car. Perhaps more in a car, as those tend to kill far more people through operator error. Own a gun, own a car, own a house with a meteor-proof roof. But don't make it out to be something it's not.
Comments are closed.