Just Buy A Gun and Use It?

I’m going to prioritize the next few days in writing to responses to e-mails and the sort. Jeff Berkowitz responds to the my defense of 24/72 hour waiting periods by bringing up a woman who is being threatened under an order of protection:

Well, imagine it. Imagine a battered woman who called the police in Chicago to enforce a protective order and to protect herself form her battering husband, but police arrived a gunshot too late. So much for the efficacy of Protective Orders. A Women’s issue, perhaps?

Or perhaps a basic issue of gun safety. If someone is buying a firearm and planning on effectively using it in 72 hours they are setting themselves up for either hurting themselves or a bystander. While the common myth of how effective handguns are for personal safety suggest you point and shoot, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Add on top of that the great fear in such a situation and someone who is planning to use the firearm without practice or training is buying into a false sense of security. A false sense of security promoted by ‘gun rights’ advocates. Far more effective means of personal security are available for someone not trained to use a firearm in the short run.

Of course, if someone is first interested in buying a firearm, the waiting period in Illinois is much longer because Illinois prudently requires a Firearm Owner Identication Card that takes a couple weeks to receive.

Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment has never been ruled an individual right. One can argue with that all they want, but it doesn’t change it. That doesn’t address whether something is reasonable policy, but in this case, one has to ask why cooling down periods are a bad thing. If someone is a responsible owner, what is the rush to use the firearm in under 24 or 72 hours?

Beyond background checks there is a good reason for the waiting period and that is it reduces easy access to guns from people in excited states. No one legally entitled to own a gun is limited, but people who make decisions out of fear or anger are given a cooling off period. From personal experience, the scared woman on the other end of the line doesn’t know about FOID cards let alone how to clear a chamber.

Most importantly, the argument that quick access to firearms is a safety issue backfires on those trying to make it.

5 thoughts on “Just Buy A Gun and Use It?”
  1. This is one subject that really brings out my conservative tendencies.

    I never understood how a clearly stated Constitutional right (gun ownership) could be regulated but a right made up out of whole cloth (Abortion) was sacrosanct.

    Common sense regulation of gun ownership (24 hour waiting period e.g.) is fine with me. Will liberals now meet me half way on abortion? Say a common sense regulation that requires parental notification?

    I won’t hold my breath ; )

    BTW, I know I left so many holes in my argument that it’s an invitation to pounce. Ok, have at me.

  2. I’m not pouncing, Steve, but while your argument, on its face, makes perfect sense, it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

    Let’s start with a basic proposition: Ours is a government of enumerated powers. That means that any powers that are not specifically enumerated don’t belong to the government, they reside in the individual – the original fount of all governernmental authority. This is the “penumbra” of privacy that some get all worked up about. “But, but, but . . . the constitution never says there’s a ‘penumbra of privacy.'” The objection misses the point – it was there before the constitution – we (as a nation) specifically abrogated specific liberties – but only where we specifically state – in the constitution.

    Thus, unless you can find something in the constitution that specifically prohibits abortion, the right of a woman to choose, which presupposes that document, is absolute. Now, of course the argument will be made that if, in fact, the embryo is a human being, then, like homicide, that right can be abrogated. A sticky wicket, to be sure, but by no means something that arose out of “whole cloth.”

    On the guns: The Second Amendment makes it clear that the right of the people to bear arms is in service to the necessity of a “well regulated Militia.”

    How what amounts to a “well regulated militia” in today’s times is a worthy question of debate, but it really needs to be framed in those terms, or it’s simply not a 2nd Amendment argument.

  3. Steve,

    I can meet you on parental notification with a judicial out clause and I am willing to ban 3rd trimester abortions with the exception of health issues for the mother so I doubt we are too far away. Having two daughters I think I should be informed of their decisions with their doctor, though I also think they should have an option should I be an jerk who is abusive.

    In terms of the 2nd Amendment, while I am generally willing to accept that it might be an individual right, I’m most concerned that we find a way to respect legitimate gun owner rights and at the same time provide for reasonable regulations to avoid too many illegal gun sales. I really think that if the Illinois laws were in place nationally we would lessen concern about guns nationally.

  4. ArchPundit correctly points out the danger-ousness of Berkowitz’ hypothetical (it’s not just spurious, it’s dangerous)–if you don’t know how to use a gun, in the “battered woman” scenario it would do far more harm than good: (1) a “small” gun is probably not a good idea–odds a small caliber weapon won’t have the stopping power to stop a determined close-range attacker; (2) she probably doesn’t know that odds are a knife-wielding attacker who gets w/in 20 feet will kill you unless you’re a very good shot (with a large enough caliber weapon); (3) marksmanship sucks under conditions of stress, even when folks have been trained(I’ve seen cases where 15+ total rounds were fired between two sides w/in 10 yards and nobody was hit). I say all these things having worked in police departmens for a number of years. If she thinks running out and getting a gun will make her safe she’s likely (dangerously) wrong and gun advocates who know their facts should know this as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *