I’ve grown tired of the fallacious “more guns = more safety and freedom” argument. As facile as it is grossly inaccurate, gun advocates too often present arguments unsupportable by facts, as if the mere act of presenting their case makes it unassailable. “A, therefore B” makes for a damned poor argument…yet that’s exactly the approach so many gun advocates take. Considering something an article of faith doesn’t mean you have evidence to support it, and if you present none, I have to presume you possess none.
Yesterday, I ran across a piece in the Oregonian, part of an occasional series they run on the ongoing gun debate. The article feature one Sam Nichols, 72, from O’Brien, a small town in eastern Oregon’s Josephine County. While I respect his point of view and his right to it, Nichols comes across as another “I have a gun, and so therefore we’re all safe from the bad guys” true believer whose conviction comes sans anything even remotely resembling evidence. Rather than merely opine as to the misguided, evidence-free nature of his argument, I thought I’d offer my own rebuttal to his argument:
I guess it’s a shame that a 72-year-old man has to strap on a pistol and protect his community, but that’s what we’ve done here in O’Brien. Because of the cutbacks in the sheriff’s department in Josephine County, burglaries and thefts were on a rampage. I had a travel trailer stolen from right here on my property.
Last July, we decided to form a group to patrol our area. We call ourselves Citizens Against Crime. We have 22 to 24 people who are volunteering to patrol. They use their own cars, pay for their own gasoline.
How can you be certain that the burglaries and thefts you characterize as “being on a rampage” are related to cutback in the sheriff’s department? In a remote area like Josephine County, it’s not as if a law enforcement presence acts as much of a deterrent to crime. You might want to look into what else might be going on (Drugs? Poverty?) before jumping to conclusions. And is vigilantism really the answer?
We are armed for self-protection. By letting the people who are doing the crimes know that we are armed, they are reluctant to challenge us. We’ve been patrolling for seven months, and there has not been one reported theft from O’Brien during those seven months. It’s been an amazing turnaround.
Really? Criminals are deterred by a group of inexperienced senior citizenss with weapons that in some cases you barely know how to use? You’re quick to take credit for what you see as a reduction in crime, and while you may well be correct, I’d submit that there could be- and most likely are- other factors in play.
And how is it you assume that criminals are now reluctant to challenge you? I get that you probably feel pretty good about yourself; after all, you’re taking action, which can be a good thing. Presuming that your action is the reason for the perceived result is at the very least fallacious.
I’ve never carried a gun in my life until this came about. I inherited this pistol from my father. It’s probably 65 years old. The gun was in his closet for years, then in my closet for all of those years until this situation developed. It was obvious that someone had to do something.
I’m not certain that a 72-year-old carrying a 65-year-old pistol is going to put the fear of God into anyone. It’s possible, of course, and I certainly don’t want to dismiss that possibility out of hand, but to think you’re a threat to anyone but yourself and those around you is a stretch, don’tchathink?
If we were not allowed to bear arms, we would not be doing these patrols. About half our group is my age. The gun is the equalizer. We are protecting ourselves and we are protecting our neighbors.
“The gun is the equalizer.” Really? Do you honestly think that a group of armed senior citizens is going to stop anyone with ill intent? If someone want to commit a crime against you, you can bet they will, and they’ll find a way to circumvent whatever resistance you’re able to present. I mean no disrespect, but let’s be honest; a group of lightly armed and poorly prepared senior citizens is really only a threat to themselves.
I do expect the government to do a few basic things. I expect my government to keep me safe from invading countries, to make sure that the food supply is not tainted and that drugs and things of that sort are certified. But beyond there, I can take care of myself.
Really? Who paves your roads? Who ensures the rule of law? Who provides for so many aspects of life that you take for granted? You may think that you’re able to take care of yourself, and I’m sure that in the most basic sense that’s true. But, like so many gun advocates, you conveniently forget so many of the things that government provides for you.
Mr. Nichols, you and your 65-year-old pistol provide scant protection from anything. Your gun doesn’t provide you greater safety or freedom…except in your own imagination.
Just be careful you don’t accidentally shoot yourself or one of your fellow vigilantes….
