This news story from the March 10, 2008 Arizona Republic went up on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog earlier today. It isn't the first animal attack foiled by gunfire that we've put up there.
Every once in a while, when debating gun control, some clueless sort will say, "Well, if there were no guns, you wouldn't need a gun for self-defense." At that point I usually remind them that:
1. A society with "no guns" is right up there with Santa Claus, leprechauns, and the Tooth Fairy for believability. The best that you can hope for is a society with fewer guns--and in a society that actually tries to make guns disappear, the people most likely to still have guns are the ones least likely to obey the law.
2. A society with "no guns" usually has knives, baseball bats, fists, and feet. If you are 20, 6'4", and rippling muscles, yeah, you might do okay in the "no guns" society. But guess what? Some day you are going to get old. And most Americans aren't built like a Mack truck.
3. There are enough of these animal attack incidents that happen that even if we had a society as peaceful and gentle as some parts of Idaho are--there's still a need for guns, at least occasionally.
"Rabid mountain lion": that's one of those phrases only slightly less frightening than "irritated grizzly bear" or "nearsighted, confused rhinoceros."
No comments:
Post a Comment