Gun Nuts and City Living

Why do most people choose to live in cities, often living closer than we'd like to our neighbours? Many of us hate the traffic, get annoyed by noise, are sometimes offended by pollution or odours, and worry about crime. But think about the services offered in a city. Fire and police protection, nearby medical facilities, potable water piped in and sewage piped out, garbage removed, libraries, arts and culture, and perhaps most important, other people to socialize with. To varying degrees, all these happen in cities and towns. Throughout history, people have clustered together to make these trade-offs. Is it a full-meal-deal, where you have to take all of it to get any of it? Can one take the parts you like, and opt out of what you don't like?

Many people know first aid, have a fire extinguisher in their kitchen, have some books, CD's, movies on disc or tape, but recognize that these things do not replace a hospital, the fire department, or a library. The professional services available far outstrip what to the average householder is capable of. These services are one of the major reasons we pay taxes.

But some people think they can and should opt out of the police protection part of the deal. They feel that keeping a loaded gun in the house or on their person means they can deal with criminals. Moore's Bowling for Columbine makes the point that at least some gun nuts believe that if you don't have a firearm, you're behaving irresponsibly toward your family and loved ones. It isn't just the movie, I've met people that believe the same thing. They're often happy to haul out their firearm(s) and show them to you.

The assumption is that if they are confronted by some criminal, they can pull out their weapon to frighten them into fleeing, or actually try to kill them. Do they ever think about what they're going to do with a body at their feet? They feel they can deal with crime better than the police, mainly because the police are never around when you need them, and besides, the police, judges, and politicians are soft on criminals anyway. They feel they have the right to do this, even in a city. In fact, they are likely to phrase it has having the responsibility, or even the obligation to do so.

But do they? How often is someone in such immediate danger that calling the police isn't a solution? What about the innocent bystanders when some excited gun nut thinks he finally has his chance to defend himself, and misses? Part of the deal about living in cities is that it's supposed to be safer, overall. Bullets flying around at random are not part of the deal, or shouldn't be.

The police use their firearms occasionally, true. But they go through extensive, documented, and repeated training on every aspect of firearms, including the use, transportation, and storage. It stands to reason that they will be better at it than all but the most fanatical amateur. Certainly safer for the bystanders. As well, police go through a review every time they use a firearm in the line of duty to be sure they have acted appropriately, and face disciplinary action if they haven't.

Crime is rare, and gradually getting rarer, American televised news to the contrary. The odds are good that the average gun nut will not ever have to fire a weapon in the heat of battle. It's much more likely that an accident will happen. Bowling for Coumbine shows a 6 year old child taking a gun from his uncle's house, and using it to kill another 6 year old child. I don't know what the numbers are, but it's common to hear in the news that gun accident has killed or maimed someone.

Then there are the people that break into homes to steal guns, or people with a right to be in the home using a gun for criminal purposes. There's no end to those stories. Do all these problems balance out the presumed good of being able to defend oneself?

I'd say not, but others believe differently. Americans fall back on their second amendment "right" to bear arms, but they somehow overlook the "well-regulated militia" part of the statement. Canadians don't have the same gun rights as Americans, yet we still have a peaceful society. The Japanese, Germans, and English have complex and well-ordered societies despite histories that include as much or even more violence than anything the US has experienced. It's pretty clear that owning guns is not a prerequisite for a peaceful society.

Indeed, once could make the opposite argument, that well-armed societies are NOT polite societies. Is anyone going to argue that the US is polite? Especially given the highest per capita rate of gun related death and mayhem in the first world.

We all, including Americans, rely on police activities to weed out the criminal element before they ever get to us. A group of individuals, even if it's a majority of the populace, cannot tackle crime in an overall, comprehensive way. As individuals we don't have the expertise or equipment to deal with the results of criminal activity. That's why we have a full-time, professionally trained police force.

Part of what society is all about is to make alternatives to crime more attractive. Crime and criminals affect everyone, including those with guns. We can't let people opt out of this part of the societal agreements inherent in living in large groups. It's too dangerous for the rest of us.