Here's a flip on the gun debate.

July 2, 2001 8:24 AM

Here's a flip on the gun debate. An Oregon sheriff wants to require every homeowner in his community to keep a gun. Amazingly, similar ordinances are already in effect in other counties, with mixed results.
posted by frykitty (31 comments total)

And I thought I did a pretty good job of staying calm on the front page.

What's truly scary is the poll attached to the article (beside the fact that they screwed it up and it's on there twice)--those in agreement with the sheriff are in the lead.

I'm on the fence about taking away peoples' guns, but I can't imagine some halfwit telling me I must own one.
posted by frykitty at 8:29 AM on July 2, 2001

Is he going to pay for annual training, as is the case with Switzerland's civilian militia?
posted by holgate at 8:32 AM on July 2, 2001

So, which is better, the freedom to own guns, or the freedom not to? I figured it'd come to this. Crazy 'merkins.
posted by Graham at 8:34 AM on July 2, 2001

"So, which is better, the freedom to own guns, or the freedom not to?"

Both.
posted by frykitty at 8:36 AM on July 2, 2001

If it isn't enforced, is it really a law?
I imagine that we haven't heard about the ACLU freakin' out about this in the other counties for this very reason. This is more about the perception of the county as being "tough on crime."
posted by machaus at 8:36 AM on July 2, 2001

Kennesaw has the same law doesn't it. This is just one of "those crazy Americans" stories us Brits are so fond of.

They'll give me a gun when they can prize open my cold dead hands ;)
posted by fullerine at 8:37 AM on July 2, 2001

Another possibility the ACLU isn't freaking out is that it's flying under their radar. These appear to be tiny, probably pro-gun counties. Imagine trying this in New York.
posted by frykitty at 8:40 AM on July 2, 2001

"If they mandate guns, then only the man dates will have them"
posted by machaus at 8:41 AM on July 2, 2001

> Is he going to pay for annual training, as is the case with
> Switzerland's civilian militia?

I'd love to see a well regulated militia - in other words, everybody being a member of the National Guard, and getting paid for it, and getting (compulsory) training.
posted by jfuller at 8:45 AM on July 2, 2001

Yep, Kennesaw, Georgia has a similar law. The results? Well, it seems that mainly the result is that people make fun of Kennesaw, GA.
posted by spilon at 8:46 AM on July 2, 2001

I'd love to see a well regulated militia - in other words, everybody being a member of the National Guard, and getting paid for it, and getting (compulsory) training.

The pacifists among us disagree. As a Buddhist, am I exempt?
posted by tweebiscuit at 8:48 AM on July 2, 2001

Well I think it is interesting that crime rates did go down down. However, I'd also be interested in seeing the accidental fire-arm related fatality statistics for the same time period. I don't understand the whole anti-gun thing (that definitely seems to prevalent around here). I personally don't own any guns, and I understand why we'd want to keep guns away from criminals. Why would we want to keep them away from law abiding citizens?
posted by betaray at 8:52 AM on July 2, 2001

I'd love to see a well regulated militia...

Because the US hasn't changed a bit since 1781.

The idea of giving everyone a gun reminds me of every corporate and government solution to every problem: throw money at it, and hope it goes away. This is essentially saying, "We'll just give all of you guys weapons, and hope our gun problems go away."

Making it a requirement actually removes one of the freedoms we've got left. I don't want to own a gun. I guess I thought I had that option.
posted by hijinx at 8:53 AM on July 2, 2001

i'm with you frykitty. i'd like to see guns available as a privilege, not as a right. i know several gun enthusiasts, and i don't trust a single one of them with a firearm to be honest.
posted by moz at 8:59 AM on July 2, 2001

a sheriff has rights that few others have on a local level. They can issue CWP and form a 'posse' by deputizing them. They have alot of power in theory. This could be seen as a re-election stunt or he fears that you fine citizens in Washington state might invade. I watched 'The Thing' (howard hawks production) the other day and it seems things are bad when the leader finally says. "mike, bob, get some guns"
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 AM on July 2, 2001

My biggest problem with the idea is a personal one. It's just too easy to take your own life with a gun in the house. I'm having visions of depressed teenagers with an easy out. If my parents had been required to own a gun, I probably wouldn't be typing this right now.

There are an awful lot of depressed teenagers out there.
posted by frykitty at 9:07 AM on July 2, 2001

While I have argued at length against gun control on here in the past, I will go on record with this issue as being 100% opposed. Just as frykitty said, both rights (to own guns, and *not* to own guns) are equally important. If this is done, I would also like to see the sheriff providing free, mandatory gun safety classes to go with it.
posted by jammer at 9:28 AM on July 2, 2001

My problem with this (in theory, of course, since I don't actually live there, but bear with me) is that someone is trying to force me to spend hundreds of dollars on a dangerous weapon that I have no interest in owning.

If this sherriff wants to pay for my gun, license fees, training, ammunition, trigger lock, and safe, then I will gladly accept them, lock the gun in the safe, and forget that I own it. Assuming that the training can be done whenever I happen to feel like doing it, of course.

However, that ignores the bigger issue -- I believe it's my right not not own a gun, or anything else for that matter. Nobody should be able to force me to buy anything.
posted by CrayDrygu at 9:49 AM on July 2, 2001

Yep, Kennesaw, Georgia has a similar law.

MeFi's take on the Kennesaw story.
posted by jpoulos at 9:54 AM on July 2, 2001

cray: i bet most in the county already own guns, so the sheriff is probably just preaching to the choir
posted by moz at 10:08 AM on July 2, 2001

here in michigan, 3 or 4 sheriffs have left because of corruption(in my county he was selling CWPs') Our new sheriff was a private eye and had a short stint at C.I.A. (he is doing a good job) alot has been said on MeFi about the personal post or link as opposed to the digital evidence. Both are great points. Both say alot about the future of the Blog. Last week, eldest daughter was upset the youngest daughter was having soda(a treat around here) Eldest daughter grabbed the 2-liter and shook it up 5 or 6 times RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I told her to take off her shoes and stand in the tub then open the bottle. The tears started flowing and she ran to her room(i wouldnt have let her open it) it worked. What bothered me was the smile i had, it hurt to a degree, but she got the point without violence(i dont hit or slap kids, there are far better and more effective means of discipline) I rid my weapons when the kids came into my life-an easy decision that did not require much thought or action. Moral? there are better ways to protect oneself, and some times all you need is a loaded Faygo bottle. and the brass tax about this sherriff? "badges?, we dont need no stinkin badges"
posted by clavdivs at 10:14 AM on July 2, 2001

Good point, spilon, but there are plenty of reasons to make fun of Kennesaw that have nothing to do with gun ownership laws.
posted by Sapphireblue at 10:21 AM on July 2, 2001

but there are plenty of reasons to make fun of Kennesaw that have nothing to do with gun ownership laws.

I'm not sure, but I think I was just insulted. If I could reach my gun from my computer, you'd be singing a different tune!

No one takes the law here seriously because it is too easy to get around. You just have to have a moral objection to owning a gun. Now, the folks in the neighboring city of Acworth have a much harder time escaping from the law requiring them to own a rake.
posted by goto11 at 10:43 AM on July 2, 2001

Scott: yeah, you were insulted, but since I lived in Cobb County a few years back before fleeing pell-mell as if my life or at least my sanity depended on it, I'm allowed. :D
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:55 AM on July 2, 2001

moz: true. true. still, though...
posted by CrayDrygu at 12:14 PM on July 2, 2001

So, which is better, the freedom to own guns, or the freedom not to? I figured it'd come to this. Crazy 'merkins.


Completely off topic I know - but I love it when people use that word
posted by bregdan at 5:50 PM on July 2, 2001

What's that wonderful aphorism I see on T-shirts at the gun show? Oh yes, it's...

"My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car."

I love that one :) My gun has never injured a human, and so long as I own it, it never will. Because I treat it carefully - as a dangerous tool, much like a sabre saw - and I am vigilant regarding who may use it. Or even touch it. Or even know where it is. Or what the combination of the lock on where it is is.

Really, everyone should own six guns:

*A .22 pistol and a .22 rifle for target shooting and general marksmanship.

*A 9mm handgun for home protection.

*A 12 gauge pump-action shotgun for utility uses (home protection and small game hunting). This is your bread-and-butter gun, here.

*A .30-06 scoped rifle for large game hunting

*A semi-automatic rifle for regional defense (AKS or AR-15 are both excellent examples).

And of course, ammo for all. A gun without ammo is a badly designed club.
posted by UncleFes at 8:36 PM on July 2, 2001

The depressed, obsessive/compulsive and the way too into ineffable existentialist quandaries must stay very clear of Coos county Oregon.

"I would never want to kill anyone. But it is possible, that I could kill someone, even if I didn't want to. Therefore, I don't ever want to own a gun, because I don't fully understand that which allows me to make spontaneous decisions. Because at some point I could make the spontaneous decision to use a gun, even though I wouldn't want to ever use it at all."

And on and on the sick mind goes with little else to ponder, sapping the very life out of the Coos Bay citizen.
posted by crasspastor at 11:03 PM on July 2, 2001

A semi-automatic rifle for regional defense?
Fes, you live in the Golan Heights bit of st. Louis or what, man?
I'm sure when the Reds, or the Kurds, or the John Ashcroft Glee Club or whomever it is that you're gearing up against comes bursting through your door, your handy AR-15 will give them lots to think about in the .3 seconds it takes for one of them to pick off the nut with the semi.
posted by dong_resin at 11:04 PM on July 2, 2001

Fes, you live in the Golan Heights bit of st. Louis or what, man?

Nah, a little east of the Heights :)

That last one was a sop to the Red Dawn Scenario of Invaded America, with a cordial nod to the Swiss. If I'm out guerilla'ing with my neighbors, I'm going to want a semiauto, so as not to waste all the ammo rocking and rolling on full. If I wanted to rumble house-to-house and clips weren't an issue, an H & K MP5 is what I'd pick. But I suppose you're right, realistically you could feasibly get by on five guns. If you only get one, get the 12-gauge pump. It's good for nearly everything a gun is good for, and you don't have to be a sharpshooter to hit something with it.
posted by UncleFes at 8:40 PM on July 3, 2001

unclefes. the MP5 is great, to bad one cant get one legally. it is the superior close quarter weapon(the bolt could pose a problem if ones thumb gripped the stock to high) The HK .45 is not bad, but it may jump to much, plus a silencer option might be difficult. The mini-16 on 3 round burst feels...one feels they have more control over the field of fire. The shot gun is good for smoking out squatters who may wait to ambush. A loud bang and a good scatter could smoke them outand the ammo is cheaper. But my old AK-74 is the boogyrod. man, some fool with a 16 goes, pop-pop-popopop. Mr.K goes BANG, ammos not cheap. "SIR, we can subsist on the deads ammunition"
posted by clavdivs at 8:01 AM on July 4, 2001