By MarkPA
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership is devoted to…responsible run ownership. The presumption is that there really is such a thing as “responsible” gun ownership distinguishable from “irresponsible” gun ownership. Let’s think about what that might mean.
The debate over gun control and gun rights is highly polarized. So much so that one might say that those at opposite poles have essentially concluded, for different reasons, that the notion of “responsible” gun ownership is an oxymoron.
The most extreme gun control zealots argue that guns are anathema to civilization. No gun can be owned responsibly; not by individuals, not even by armies or police. Therefore, anyone having guns is irresponsible.
On the gun rights side, some would argue that possessing arms—including guns—for the defense of life is so fundamental a natural right that it cannot be denied to any individual on any account. Therefore, there is no reason to question the character of ownership.
These are just a few of the paradoxes. Plenty of gun control advocates concede that governments must arm their armies and many of their police. As further concessions are made, they are censured for being soft on gun control.
Likewise, most gun rights advocates concede that anyone in lawful custody may be deprived of their right to arms. A prisoner in custody, a patient in an insane asylum, a minor or an incompetent in the custody of a parent or guardian. With further concessions, they are criticized for being soft on gun rights.
When opinion is so polarized, a circle-the-wagons mentality sets in. Under such conditions, a consensus can’t really develop. It’s a contest in which the winner takes all.
Gun controllers practice the anaconda tactic. They entwine the disparaged behavior in a coil of laws designed to squeeze the life out of the practitioners. With each attempt to breathe, the victim weakens until, exhausted, it expires. The anaconda wins.
It’s no surprise, then, that the victim responds by trying to resist every squeeze—no matter how gently it’s presented. If rationality is to prevail, we must stand firm in our positions.
In defining responsible gun ownership, we should remove from discussion that which can’t be usefully evaluated. One example may be ownership by an individual suffering from a severe mental illness. When an individual commits a crime while insane, we do not hold him to be “responsible” for his act.
So when a gun owner commits suicide by gun we shouldn’t hold him “responsible” for his gun use. If a sailor hangs himself, would we hold that he was an irresponsible rope owner? If a doctor prescribes himself a lethal dose of a drug would we hold that he was an irresponsible physician? We’ll make no progress toward solving the problem of suicide by targeting ownership of guns, rope or prescription pads.
As a different example, consider gun ownership by criminals. Using any implement in a violent crime is obviously irresponsible. Yet violent crime is not suppressed by targeting ownership of guns, cutlery or clubs.
Gun controllers cry for “common sense” and “gun safety.” Yet they can’t explain how any of their proposals would actually promote the safe keeping or bearing of guns. Where do we find examples of responsible gun ownership and behavior? That would not come from those who would control and eliminate firearms—nearly none of them even use them.
The majority in the middle will ultimately define what constitutes “responsible,” not the partisans. Yet laws are (ostensibly) only directed at the irresponsible possession of guns. What about promoting responsible gun ownership? Solutions can only come from those who are experienced with guns.
We ought to be thinking about advancing the state-of-the-art in gun handling skills and the lawful use of lethal force in self-defense. Promoting education and training, testing skills.
Would gun control sympathizers join with gun rights advocates in promoting a real-life definition of responsible gun ownership?
Nah.
’MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.
This article was originally published at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.
Until.the ulterior motives behind disarmament are addressed the discussion is a waste of time. It’s not about gun control , just control
This !
As long as the Marxist lefts push for a replacement of the US Constitution and form of governing ,there is no need for further discussions or coming together.
I’m all for responsible gun ownership and strive to live it myself and teach it to others:
1) Assume every weapon is loaded, always.
2) Never point it at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot it.
4) Be aware of what is beyond your target.
Perhaps I should also add:
You can never have too many guns or too much ammo.
I think these points are essential for responsible gun ownership and use.
I agree 100%. Gun owners need to be responsible for their guns. Keeping them out of the hands of bad guys, knowing who you sell to and/or allow to use. Reporting them stolen when you find out, etc. These are just common sense. Use them in a safe manner.
Whoop!
Why is it my responsibility to report a stolen gun? I’d be the victim in that case! Now I would report it in case it is recovered so I can get my property back, but that’s a CHOICE, not a responsibility.
Put it another way, if I report my gun stolen, how will that help prevent any crime?
It’s a slippery slope, don’t slide down it.
Reported a Python stolen from my car in 1969, never heard another word. When it is returned I’d consider reporting another theft.
If the Second Amendment isn’t absolute, neither is the Thirteenth. The Democrats already proved that back in 42.
Nah is exactly right. Try to take a gun grabbers car keys and see how they react. Outrageously , because cars don’t cause deaths right ? Wrong !! Cars cause more fatalities than firearms do , many more auto deaths in fact. Drunk driving , texting & driving . a mentally unstable person with an automobile wanting to hurt innocent people can easily drive in to a crowd of people , if one is intent on hurting , killing people , that person will find a means to do so. A gun is a tool. Lawful use of that tool has been given such a bad reputation. It is despicable how badly gun owners are treated , victimized by a government and liberal flower sniffing cowards who won’t hesitate to call the authorities if they feel they’ve been threatened in any way. The authorities show up ” sometimes ” with ? That’s right they come to protect the gun grabbers with ? Guns of course. Figure that one out , if you can !!
The cause more deaths even though *billions* of dollars have been spent making them ‘safer’…
I am not responsible for your belief in your sad and sorry, collectivist, progressive agenda. It behooves you not to mess with things that are none of your business. I suppose it never occurred to you that you are the problem. It’s much easier to attack others who are just minding their own business that it is to fix your own inadequacy and lack of knowledge of exactly how insignificant you are in the real world. There are many more of us than there of you. Sit down, shut up and leave us alone. 30
Thinking that there can be “responsible gun ownership” is as much a shuck-and-jive as being told that we should have a “responsible discussion about race” with BLM activists. Both groups claim a moral imperative which makes their viewpoints superior to all others. Anyone not like them is a cultural enemy and the only “responsible” role for their cultural enemies to to accept their dogma. There is no “reasonable” middle ground with these kinds of people because they, themselves, don’t see the world as being in any way possible unless their particular viewpoints and completely accepted by everyone else.
Well said.
You nailed it.
Only an antigun prog would use the hate speech trigger words “responsible gun ownership”. Fum.
Some days TAG just needs a like button!
P.S. Why is it “gun violence” if someone orders a firearm, waits 3 days to pick it up, undergoes a Federal & state criminal background check and then shoots themselves in the head to end the suffering of a terrible disease, but they are a hero if they get a passport, fly to Switzerland, meet with a doctor and then eat a bottle of sleeping pills?
Just asking…
Well said!
I am living in Switzerland, and here also the gun control freaks like to include suicides with guns in their statistics, but if you go to Exit or Dignitas (suicide organisations), that’s fine and dandy, if you jump in front of a train (around 140 per year), well too bad for the conductor, and the cleanup team, but at least it wasn’t a gun.
Where at? My family came from Riggisberg in 1886-1889.
They said the Missouri hills looked like home – Canton Bern, not the Alps.
What do think of ProTell?
Gee I’m responsible. I don’t rob or shoot people. Nuff said( with apologies to Stan Lee😄).
“Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership is devoted to…responsible run ownership.”
What the frack is “responsible run ownership?” And why should I care since I don’t own a single run.
Well, I used to own a lot of runs, but they were all lost in a horrible goat accident.
It is called: Spell check much?
Goat Simulator. Good times. 😂
😀
Thought of you when I read this:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/fake-news-is-unbelievable-when-is-enough-going-to-be-enough/
“Responsible Gun Ownership” = Is to never allow a gun-grabber access to your guns…
The key to “Responsible Gun Ownership” is of course to have responsible guns……I open up my gun safe and every one of my guns is present and accounted for…..not one has ever attempted an escape and gone on a killing spree and if someone asks me why I feel the ‘need’ to have so many guns I politely remind them that it is a “Bill of Rights” that is enshrined in our Constitution, not a “Bill of Needs”.
I want “Responsible Doctors”, am I asking for too much?
If I give 100% to my job with the assurance that it’s my ass if don’t and someone is following up on my work. Yet if physicians have the time to be responsible for firearms ownership”, but can’t be responsible for their fellow physicians?
The problem is exceedingly simple.
Gun grabbers:
(1) Have an emotional position based on feelings and their vision of how a perfect world should be.
(2) Knowingly elect politicians who will send government agents to imprison and/or murder the good people of our nation who have firearms for righteous recreation and righteous self-defense.
(3) Willingly hand over their money (via taxes) to pay those agents.
The sad reality: this conflict will never go away because there will always be hoards of people who advance their feelings without any concern for timeless, objective standards of right and wrong.
Given the stats o DGUs and gun ownership vs. crime rates, the responsible thing is to arm more people.
Let’s get that “well regulated militia” cranking people.
An interesting variable in this argument, is whether or not various laws can be considered valid. For example, an earlier article mentioned a woman who had been charged with a non violent felony. It was non violent, but still enough to nullify her right to own a firearm. Her husband (boyfriend?) had a legally owned firearm. She used it to shoot an intruder in self defense. However, even though it was self defense, she was still chà4g3d with 8llegal possession. The law should be viewed more as guidelines. General rules that can have exceptions in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, when guns are involved, the courts and the police tend to take the law as rigid doctrines.
While medical ‘professionals’ kill 300,000 of their patients every year.
An irresponsible gun owner shoots holes in signs, a responsible gun owner just shoots out the O in STOP
But then he collaborates and listens.
Nah is correct, because “gun violence prevention” activists already have a definition of “responsible” gun ownership. It’s gun ownership which is limited to a couple of slow-to-load rifles and shotguns used exclusively for hunting and target shooting, and otherwise kept locked up, and owned by some Fudd who accepts their never-ending wishlist of restrictions as “reasonable” “common-sense” measures to reduce gun deaths. Hence their frequent claim that whatever bone-headed restriction is currently fashionable won’t impact the 2nd Amendments rights of responsible gun owners.
TTAG gives DRGO a lot of air time and respect here…not sure they deserve it given what the medical profession really represents to the american public these days.
DRGO isn’t the AMA. Far from it. Read the articles.
They are associated with the Second Amendment Foundation and staunchly pro-2A. Don’t tar all doctors with the same brush.
I don’t. At the same time, I don’t put them on a pedestal because they’re MD’s that don’t want to take away our liberties.
Even staunchly pro 2A medical professionals are contributing to a holocaust on our children; projected rate of autism for boys is 1:22 in the near future. And the number of Americans their profession needlessly kills yearly…..
GS650G said it all. people control, not gun control. it is people control that is what they want komrad.
Comments are closed.