Saturday, May 22, 2010

Guns as Equalizers

Pistols, in the 19th Century, were called “equalizers” because they made the tiniest woman equal to the biggest man. I’m not even going to say I’m a believer, because I don’t “believe” it’s true, no more than I believe 2+2=4. It just is true.

I have known three women who were murdered. I did not know them personally. One was strangled by a serial killer a few weeks after I left my job and she was hired. She was a small young woman, and for that matter, the guy who killed her wasn’t that big. I could have taken him, which is why these guys kill the weaker, such as women.

The other two were sisters, and I did meet their mother. They were raped and thrown off of a bridge by four teenagers.

In each case, if these women would have had a pistol, or even a knife, they would have survived. Even a two-shot, .22 derringer would have saved their lives, just with the threat of it, if nothing else.

I once wrote an article about the two sisters, and made a silent bet with myself that at least one imbecile would tell me young people should not carry guns. I responded, “So you’re saying it’s okay that these women were raped and murdered, then?” and got no response.

I am reminded of the classical definition of a liberal: someone who would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own panty-house rather than defend herself with a handgun.

I think it should be a law that everyone has to carry a concealed handgun. Sure, there’d be an adjustment period in which those genetically and character-deficient were eliminated, but in the long-run (meaning a few weeks) society would be much more peaceful.

1 comment:

Kent McManigal said...

I guess I'm odd, but even though I think everyone should carry a gun at all times, I would not support a "law" that required it.

I have had 3 close, personal friends who were shot. Two did not survive.

One was shot and killed under somewhat mysterious circumstances- I suspect it was a drug deal that went bad, as he did have that tendency. Supposedly he was looking at a guy's revolver and was holding it by the barrel as he handed it back, and it "went off". He didn't handle guns that way. As far as I know the shooter was never punished. Which wouldn't have brought my friend back anyway. If the circumstances are as described by the shooter, my friend having a guns wouldn't have made a difference. But if the shooter was lying... who knows.

Another who died was shot by an ex who she had a restraining order against. She worked for a lawyer and he helped her file the paperwork and do everything the "legal system" suggests. Had I known what was going on (I had recently moved far away), I would have loaned her a gun. But in this case even that would probably not have saved her. The killer pulled up beside her car as she waited for a light to change, and he shot her in the head. She probably never saw it coming.

The friend who survived his shooting was mugged at an ATM at 2AM in a mall parking lot. The mugger wasn't satisfied with the take, and shot him in the back. He "gave him what he wanted" and was shot for his cooperation.

Still, if having a gun gives you even a slight advantage, evens the odds a little, why would you NOT carry?