Story-time about guns continues
I don’t have the right to “take away your guns” apparently…but do you have the right to take away my safety–or my life? How about this: you keep your guns—but if anyone accidentally dies or someone gets ahold of your gun that isn’t you–you go to prison for life. Fair deal?
1. What does me having German-descent have to do with the previous gun post? I thought this was an anonymous blog….? For the record, I am not German. I am an American. I cannot reiterate that enough to people. If you are interested in my genealogy: I descend from Germans, Irish, Native Americans (Blackfeet Tribe), and Africans (or African-Americans, however you want to put it). Let’s try not to stereotype me as “German” from now on. For the record–and to clarify the story below–I “look” white to other people.
2. Your gun “saved” your wife, let me tell you how idiots with guns terrorized me and my family in the early 1990s.
In 1990, my parents bought and fixed up an old house in northern, Illinois. (Off Rt. 72 between Dekalb and Chicago). During the first week, my mom’s car died and my dad headed to the used car joint to pick up another one. The salesman was eager to sell to my dad, but my dad wanted my mom’s opinion on the car since she would be its primary driver. My dad–the “German/Irish” descent looking one of the family brought over my mom–the “German, native American, and black” one of the family to the car store. When my mom got there–the salesman refused to sell the car to my parents–”because they don’t sell to Jews”. (For the record, we are not Jewish–but we were raised Catholic. Not like this sort of discrimination needs to be qualified by that. It is wrong no matter how you look at it.) They thought my mom was Jewish because of her “look”.
The “not selling to Jews” thing in the town blossomed to other areas. We no longer could shop at the two local grocery stores–nor the video stores because we were “Jewish”. We couldn’t eat at a restaurant in the town because my mom has black, fuzzy, curly hair.
It got worse. Old men sitting on their porches would yell at me and my sisters and throw rocks at us (5-7 year olds) because we were “nigger lovers” and played with the “dirty Mexican” kids down the street. You do the math: 60+ year old men v. 5-year old kids?
We called the cops on these people–but guess what? The cops WERE these same people.
After other harassments—we caught a break. The town idiots began opening up all of our mail–which mind you is a FEDERAL offense. We started to get the federal authorities involved when…
One night…a group of these heathens drove by our house and SHOT out our front porch windows. Thankfully we all slept on the 2nd floor of the house–otherwise I’m not so sure I’d be writing on this blog.
We moved immediately…the next day…
Why should these assholes have rights to own guns—and to USE THEM against innocent people—just because the mother of the family has black hair? How are these guns protecting my safety–or the safety of the idiots using them? Explain this to me, Mr. Augur (who I can only assume is actually Augur himself–how would Papa Augur know my lineage?).
Comment by Augur on 26 February 2008 at 1:39 pm:
Segen - The German thing is my fault. I sent my dad the article, and he basically asked about who wrote it and if it was some liberal sissy, and I said “this smart German girl.” I guess I should have said some smart girl who is interested in Germany, but you said you’re descended from Germans, like me, so applying the one drop rule, you’re a German descendant. Congrats.
Augur Senior is my dad. Sorry I was a little sloppy. I’ll email him your post, and post his reply.
Comment by JayBandit on 26 February 2008 at 1:48 pm:
I thought Augur Senior was Ragnar?
Segen, I don’t see why you are assuming everyone is like the hill-billies out by DeKalb.
Comment by Segen on 26 February 2008 at 1:49 pm:
Did I assume hillbillies are from DeKalb? No.
I grew up there.
I am not a hillbilly.
Comment by tet on 26 February 2008 at 1:56 pm:
I’ll restrain myself from saying that if you had guns you would have been able to shoot back, since you obviously had the whole town against you.
Man, this sort of ignorant behavior on the part of Illinoisians makes me want to move somewhere civilized, like Alberta. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around a car salesman turning down a sale because of ethnicity–that’s really alien to me. I could possibly imagine it in the 50s or 60s, but the 90s, really weird. Are you positive that “Jew” wasn’t a code-word for something else?
In any case, you did make an interesting point about the responsibilities of gun ownership. A surprising number of the guns that are used in city crimes come from the unlocked glove compartments of white commuters. The owner of a weapon must take responsibility for what happens with it.
Tom
Comment by Anonymous on 26 February 2008 at 1:58 pm:
Segen: Jaybandit didn’t say all people from Dekalb are hillbillys. Did you ever take a logic class? Did you pay attention?
Comment by kofi the from what i've seen this blog is about half anonymous half not. on 26 February 2008 at 2:08 pm:
These people illegally used their guns to scare and intimidate your family into moving. Some points to be made:
a) They weren’t using their guns legally. You don’t even know if they came into possession of those guns legally. No one here has argued it should be legal for drunks in pickups to shoot at the houses of people they don’t like.
b) You say the cops ‘were these very same people.’ Has there ever been a better argument for giving individuals the right to defend themselves? If your family had ever needed help, do you think those police would have promptly arrived to save you? Even worse, the police may be the ones you need saving from.
c) The people that shot your window could have accomplished the same thing without a gun. They could have thrown rocks through your windows. They could have burned a cross on your lawn and put nooses in your treees. Hell, they could have set fire to your house.
The lesson is stricter gun laws would not have helped because (a)these people weren’t following the laws in the first place and (c) they weren’t limited to using guns to accomplish their goals. In fact, stricter gun laws could have made the situation much worse (b).
Comment by kofi the from what i've seen this blog is about half anonymous half not. on 26 February 2008 at 2:08 pm:
These people illegally used their guns to scare and intimidate your family into moving. Some points to be made:
a) They weren’t using their guns legally. You don’t even know if they came into possession of those guns legally. No one here has argued it should be legal for drunks in pickups to shoot at the houses of people they don’t like.
b) You say the cops ‘were these very same people.’ Has there ever been a better argument for giving individuals the right to defend themselves? If your family had ever needed help, do you think those police would have promptly arrived to save you? Even worse, the police may be the ones you need saving from.
c) The people that shot your window could have accomplished the same thing without a gun. They could have thrown rocks through your windows. They could have burned a cross on your lawn and put nooses in your treees. Hell, they could have set fire to your house.
The lesson is stricter gun laws would not have helped because (a)these people weren’t following the laws in the first place and (c) they weren’t limited to using guns to accomplish their goals. In fact, stricter gun laws could have made the situation much worse (b).
Comment by kofi the from what i've seen this blog is about half anonymous half not. on 26 February 2008 at 2:08 pm:
These people illegally used their guns to scare and intimidate your family into moving. Some points to be made:
a) They weren’t using their guns legally. You don’t even know if they came into possession of those guns legally. No one here has argued it should be legal for drunks in pickups to shoot at the houses of people they don’t like.
b) You say the cops ‘were these very same people.’ Has there ever been a better argument for giving individuals the right to defend themselves? If your family had ever needed help, do you think those police would have promptly arrived to save you? Even worse, the police may be the ones you need saving from.
c) The people that shot your window could have accomplished the same thing without a gun. They could have thrown rocks through your windows. They could have burned a cross on your lawn and put nooses in your treees. Hell, they could have set fire to your house.
The lesson is stricter gun laws would not have helped because (a)these people weren’t following the laws in the first place and (c) they weren’t limited to using guns to accomplish their goals. In fact, stricter gun laws could have made the situation much worse (b).
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 26 February 2008 at 4:10 pm:
While it’s been enjoyable to read all these different stories of experiences with guns, anecdotal stories about good and bad experiences don’t really make very good arguments. I once had a gun pulled on me, on the UofI campus, no less, and afterwards I felt no great desire to ban guns or start packing my own heat.
Since I didn’t get in on this earlier, I thought I drop in my prediction on the Supreme Court case: The court finds a limited individual right to own guns.
Allan
Comment by JayBandit on 26 February 2008 at 5:56 pm:
thank you anonymous…i was supremely irked by segen’s comment until reading yours…
There are people all over the country that are bigoted and make stupid decisions, and often times without guns. So I really don’t understand the point of Segen’s story at all.
Comment by Segen on 26 February 2008 at 9:30 pm:
JayBandit,
I apologize for my response and realize in retrospect that it did not address your concern. I miss-read your earlier comment while walking out the door and hastily replied. I will try to do a better job at more thoroughly reading the responses from now on.
I do not assume that everyone in Illinois are hill-billies, like the unfortunate people I dealt with regarding the shooting. More often than not, people are good and do not do idiotic things to harm others.
I realize my post is anecdotal, but often feel that sometimes purposes can get lost in numbers. One of the best reports I ever read was the Department of State’s annual report and the Trafficking in Persons. This report is a compilation of stats and mind-numbing government regulations–but after every 3 paragraphs or so–the collective authors fold in an anecdotal story about trafficking victims. While reading the report, it helped me keep a grasp on the changes the US government can make in the lives of trafficked people and why these numbers are important.
For me, I just wish I didn’t have to live in fear of someone shooting me–or harming me in any other way besides shooting. I feel that guns make hurting others more accessible. I do see a difference between choking someone to death and shooting someone else–the former requires more personal involvement. Perhaps morality might cross this person’s mind in those crucial minutes while the other person is struggling for his or her life. With guns–it’s pretty much a done deal.
Comment by Hanno on 26 February 2008 at 10:25 pm:
I always find gun control debates fascinating. Actually debate in general in this country fascinates me because it’s so often posed in such extreme black and white terms that many people I have met from other countries find it bizarre for its lack of nuance and 3-dimensionality.
Now that I’m done insulting all of you, I’ll get to my point. How does a compromise sound? The problem with many of the pro-gun arguments is that no one I’ve ever met who expressed the opinions has given it a caveat and by “a caveat” I mean any. Here’s a few observations or suggestions for caveats to the pro-gun position:
1) some sort of licensing requirement, like driver’s education before you can get a gun or conceal and carry permit that would include training in the proper use, maintenance, etc.
2) Some sort of negligence liability that attaches to owners whose guns are used for improper purposes if they did not take proper precautions (actually Tom suggested something along these lines)
3)(And I’m sure this one’s almost always implied, but I never hear anyone voice it) A mandatory background check on all firearm purchases to make sure unstable people or people with histories of violence aren’t getting guns
Personally, I like waiting periods and extensive background checks because I don’t particularly want to see people with a propensity for violence running around with guns. Also, I’d really like to see some evidence to back up the claims that conceal and carry laws reduce gun deaths and/or violent crimes. I’m not talking about 100% iron-clad proof. I’m honestly talking about a strong correlation using multi-variate regression (basic statistics that removes/reduces the influence of extraneous factors). I’m also perversely curious as to how many more accidents occur in such states. Not necessarily deaths, but just yoyos having their guns go off and blowing off their Peters because they neglected to put on the safety.
Comment by kofi the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_man's_land on 26 February 2008 at 10:56 pm:
Actually debate in general in this country fascinates me because it’s so often posed in such extreme black and white terms that many people I have met from other countries find it bizarre for its lack of nuance and 3-dimensionality.
We’re a slippery slope society. I’m sure many would agree to more compromised solutions for a number of issues, but the perception is giving an inch will give a mile.
Unfortunately, the mentality isn’t paranoid. Illinois just passed a smoking ban. Within two months of its activation someone has proposed banning wood burning fire places. And when we give in on that what’s next? No BBQs? Its the same resistance to longer waiting periods or permanent registration records (I believe as the law currently is backgrund check and registration information must be destroyed by law within a number of days [90?] of the sale). You propose a licensing requirement - perfectly reasonable. The fear from the shooters? The licensing requirements will become so insanely stringent that they will effectively prevent anyone from having a gun. The fear of the duck’n'covers? The licensing will be so loose that its a mere formality. Education. Healthcare. Social security. Abortion. Every big issue. Every small issue.
On a societal level maybe our freedom is to blame for our attitudes. Despite our flirtations with socialism, this country has remained relatively more free and subject to the people than any other in the world. Maybe we’re not fanatics for demanding the rule of law conform to our beliefs. Maybe these people from other countries have simply become too pacified by generations bowing to the government. Maybe these people are justifying rather than ‘compromising.’
Comment by kofi the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_man's_land on 26 February 2008 at 10:56 pm:
Actually debate in general in this country fascinates me because it’s so often posed in such extreme black and white terms that many people I have met from other countries find it bizarre for its lack of nuance and 3-dimensionality.
We’re a slippery slope society. I’m sure many would agree to more compromised solutions for a number of issues, but the perception is giving an inch will give a mile.
Unfortunately, the mentality isn’t paranoid. Illinois just passed a smoking ban. Within two months of its activation someone has proposed banning wood burning fire places. And when we give in on that what’s next? No BBQs? Its the same resistance to longer waiting periods or permanent registration records (I believe as the law currently is backgrund check and registration information must be destroyed by law within a number of days [90?] of the sale). You propose a licensing requirement - perfectly reasonable. The fear from the shooters? The licensing requirements will become so insanely stringent that they will effectively prevent anyone from having a gun. The fear of the duck’n'covers? The licensing will be so loose that its a mere formality. Education. Healthcare. Social security. Abortion. Every big issue. Every small issue.
On a societal level maybe our freedom is to blame for our attitudes. Despite our flirtations with socialism, this country has remained relatively more free and subject to the people than any other in the world. Maybe we’re not fanatics for demanding the rule of law conform to our beliefs. Maybe these people from other countries have simply become too pacified by generations bowing to the government. Maybe these people are justifying rather than ‘compromising.’
Comment by kofi the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_man's_land on 26 February 2008 at 10:56 pm:
Actually debate in general in this country fascinates me because it’s so often posed in such extreme black and white terms that many people I have met from other countries find it bizarre for its lack of nuance and 3-dimensionality.
We’re a slippery slope society. I’m sure many would agree to more compromised solutions for a number of issues, but the perception is giving an inch will give a mile.
Unfortunately, the mentality isn’t paranoid. Illinois just passed a smoking ban. Within two months of its activation someone has proposed banning wood burning fire places. And when we give in on that what’s next? No BBQs? Its the same resistance to longer waiting periods or permanent registration records (I believe as the law currently is backgrund check and registration information must be destroyed by law within a number of days [90?] of the sale). You propose a licensing requirement - perfectly reasonable. The fear from the shooters? The licensing requirements will become so insanely stringent that they will effectively prevent anyone from having a gun. The fear of the duck’n'covers? The licensing will be so loose that its a mere formality. Education. Healthcare. Social security. Abortion. Every big issue. Every small issue.
On a societal level maybe our freedom is to blame for our attitudes. Despite our flirtations with socialism, this country has remained relatively more free and subject to the people than any other in the world. Maybe we’re not fanatics for demanding the rule of law conform to our beliefs. Maybe these people from other countries have simply become too pacified by generations bowing to the government. Maybe these people are justifying rather than ‘compromising.’
Comment by Hanno on 27 February 2008 at 1:15 am:
You know Kofi, sometimes, just sometimes I think that you might not be completely nuts…
Comment by Augur Senior on 27 February 2008 at 8:47 am:
WOW, your story reads about like a Walking Tall movie. I am horrified to believe that kind of thing could happen in 1990s Illinois, but lets take this line by line and start with your first sentence. You see, I have already made the deal you are talking about. Every legal, responsible, firearms owner makes that deal as the entry requirement to firearm ownership. If I use a firearm in anger, I go to jail for a long time, probably forever. If I store a weapon irresponsibly or allow someone who isn’t me to get “ahold” of my gun, I am in a lot of trouble. OK maybe not life, but in a lot of trouble. It is a fair deal, and it is called being responsible for one’s own actions.
Sorry about the German descent thing. Being of German descent is something our family is proud of. I guess it is my stereotype or prejudice. See we were raised to believe that down through history the German people typically don’t allow themselves to be victimized. It is a cultural thing.
But now to the point. The blame you place in the story of your family’s troubles is so misguided. The racist idiots who were terrorizing your family were not doing so because the guns made them. In fact, if you could have made all the guns in the world disappear, they would have still terrorized you. They would have just thrown bricks or burned you out, or any other of a million things. Humans are very inventive when it comes to cruelty and hate. But you blame the guns they had. You might as well blame the automobile they were driving when they did their drive by. If they hadn’t had cars they would have found another way to terrorize you, and if they hadn’t had guns they would have too.
Here is the irony of your story. Who did your family go to for help? Answer: The Feds i.e. Guys with guns! Don’t you see? The gun was/is a tool. In the hands of good people it protects. In the hands of bad people it terrorizes.
Don’t you see? I am not advocating taking away your safety. Your safety has been taken away from you now, by a society/government that does not trust you enough to believe that you have the right to defend yourself. And because this is America, you don’t have to. You can be a sheep. If attacked, you can call 911. The police will arrive in time to draw chalk outlines around you and your loved ones’ bodies and then file a wonderful report. Freedom of choice.
Comment by Hanno on 27 February 2008 at 9:14 am:
Does no one else here find irony in the fact that Mr. Augur Senior is using this as an example of how the government took away Seneca’s family’s right to protect themselves when they were still perfectly capable and within all rights of law to do so? Seneca’s family could have had a gun and used it in their own home. I don’t think Seneca was ever saying that should be stopped, so I’m not sure it’s fair to bitch about government taking away your right to defend yourself when having a gun in your own home is still perfectly legal.
Comment by Hanno on 27 February 2008 at 9:15 am:
Uh…change all references to Seneca to Segen* :-D
Comment by thetodd on 27 February 2008 at 11:39 am:
A few people have said that if someone is out to get you, they don’t need a gun to do it. While this is true, I don’t think anyone has addressed Segen’s point that some methods have different psychological impact than others. I think this is an important point that hasn’t received enough attention.
Perhaps a counterpoint is that some of the people like Segen’s tormentors are so twisted that they’d actually enjoy the process of killing or hurting someone in a slower, more painful, and more interactive way, and they’re unaware of this desire until they are forced to get creative without their guns.
Another possibility is that other methods (like fire, for example) destroy more than just people, they also destroy property, and thus a relatively “clean” method like a gun imposes less costs on everyone else.
Those arguments are a (more than) a bit of a stretch, but I can’t really come up with a good response to the idea that being able to pull a trigger and kill someone from a distance results in more deaths and serious injuries than would occur without this possibility. Anyone want to try?
On an unrelated note, sometimes I feel like there are two discussions going on here (and everywhere else I’ve ever seen a gun discussion). Some people are discussing whether or not individual possession of guns is a good thing from a moral or practical perspective, while others are discussing whether LAWS about individual possession of guns are a good thing from a moral or practical perspective.
I understand that the effect of anti-gun laws will probably be fewer guns, but I still think it’s an important distinction.I’ve been guilty of mixing up the two topics myself, and I’m writing this in part to remind myself not to do that anymore.