What Gun for Arming the Helpless? A Different Sort of Hypothetical

[3KillerBs]

I argue political, ethical, and moral issues on a site devoted to such things. Recently, I brought up the point that if people claim to want to empower the "oppressed" (meaning women, poor people, and minorities of assorted ethnic origins in the definition of debate opponent), and reduce crime the most effective means the data supports would be to offer firearms training and to give a free gun to any adult, non-felon, US citizen who completed the training in a satisfactory manner (obeying all relevant laws for background checks, etc, of course).

Political factors would prevent such a program from actually happening all over the country, but if a town like Kennesaw, GA stepped up and wanted to try it as an alternative to the usual anti-crime stuff, there are a couple practical things to work out.

I suspect that qualified firearms instructor work for less than the sort of activist/lobbyist/community organizer/social worker types than currently draw paychecks from anti-crime programs. So salaries for the program staff would probably be neutral vs. the traditional programs.

And state-level anti-crime funding, or local donations, should cover the cost of the CCW/CHL permits.

The big, practical, budget-minded question is the guns. Since guns need to fit and hands vary wildly, I think there would need to be a choice of 3-4 models. Additionally, since we're dealing with poor people it should be an affordable caliber -- which probably means 9mm or .38 special. I was thinking that a retail price level of under $300 would be affordable in bulk-buy, wholesale pricing when such a program buys several hundred to several thousand at once.

What guns do you think would be suitable for such a program? Something reasonably reliable, not too complicated, easily maintained, and that people could easily find holsters, spare magazines, speed loaders, etc. for them.

My first thoughts were Taurus 85 revolvers and Bersa Thunder 9s. Both are popular, CCW guns generally accepted as guns that give good value for the money. But I think there needs to be a little more variety for different hand-sizes.

What guns do you think would suit my hypothetical anti-crime program?

 

[Serena]

3KB, I'll say the same thing here I wrote at Women and Guns.

It is admirable to want to help those who cannot help themselves.

However, the right to protect oneself also requires knowing how and why to do that. The right to protect oneself, the right to safety of person, property and papers is predicated upon thinking for oneself.

Something is more valuable to us when we have worked for it. Handing out weapons will make them mean less to those to whom they are given.

Handouts have not helped America.

Handing out weapons to groups of people simply because they fit some demographic description is a terrifying proposition.

America is founded upon individual enterprise, not handouts.

Individual training, individual effort and scholarship, individual skill and wisdom, individual discipline are required for shooting.

Self-government begins with the individual. It is why citizenship programs are so important for immigrants. I lived overseas for many years. The difference in the way we Americans think about everything is vital, crucial, and must be learned. Responsible citizenship is vital. Understanding what is required to be self-governing is the crux of protecting oneself. Handouts undermine this kind of thinking.

Judging a particular group of people to be helpless because that group is not Anglo-Saxon or male, is discriminating against Anglo-Saxon males. Anglo-Saxon men are not the most common perpetrators of violent crimes. Giving weapons to everyone else but them is to start a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.

I admire your wanting to help people, but your proposal is utterly terrifying. Please reconsider what you are dreaming of. If you are debating ridiculous proposals just for the sake of debate, is that not akin to "just to amuse myself"?

This proposal is a Bolshevik's dream.

Serena

 

[Old Grump]

I think its a great idea, I recommend a good Colt or S&W 38 spcl double action revolver as being simple to operate and maintain. Get a program like that up and I would volunteer to be one of the instructors for the safety and marksmanship portion of the program. Everybody that qualifies for the program also gets enrolled in a tech or trade school to learn a marketable skill to help them move up a pay grade. Part of the training would be learning simple things like how to open a bank account, balance a check book and to make a budget. Beats hell out of more jails.

 

[Treo]

give a free gun to any adult, non-felon, US citizen who completed the training in a satisfactory manner

Palin/3KB '12

 

[3KillerBs]

And I'll give the same reply, ...

It would be useful, productive, and helpful in the discussion to discuss a possible work requirement for the program.

But the logic of your reply says that not only should people not give the hungry fish but that they shouldn't teach fishing either.

Not everyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps -- especially those who live in places were boots have previously been outlawed.

There are GOING TO BE anti-crime programs and they ARE GOING TO be funded by our tax dollars. This is a fact of life in the society we live in.

As I made clear in the background, I proposed a more effective use of said money than the usual nonsense. You can go all frontier-independent and social Darwinist by saying no one should ever give another a hand up to help set them on their own feet if you want to. But the money is going to be spent somehow and I propose spending it more effectively.

I will be making this case on that website when the topic of crime and violence comes up and I asked a specific question. If you want to frequent websites for the discussion of political, social, and moral questions and make the case for leaving the weak and the helpless to die at the hands of the predators among us unless they can bootstrap themselves into the middle-class and the suburbs you can.

But I doubt many people will be convinced that's a good idea and the anti-crime money will continue to be spent on programs long proven useless until some better idea catches hold.

 

[ScottyT]

I think a more realistic approach would be to offer free/low-cost CCW permit classes and reduce/remove the fees for said permits. An ad campaign to spread the word and encourage people to take responsibility and BUY a firearm would also be a great idea.

Encouraging firearm ownership and letting people reach their own decision is a much better idea than just dumping a truckload of guns on the population -- however noble the ideals behind it may be.

 

[3KillerBs]

I recommend a good Colt or S&W

I figured that, as passionate as many gunnies are about sharing their enthusiasm, there would be a lot of volunteers willing to work on the training part. One of the guys who helped teach me to shoot would probably be willing to get down on his knees and beg if he thought it would encourage vulnerable women to get carry permits.

Obviously Colt and S&W are EXCELLENT names. Do you think that bulk purchase could get the price down sufficiently? Does either company have any history of making a model for the reduced-price segment of the market?

I expect the price of the gun to be a sticking point in the cost of such a program.

 

[Claude Clay]

govt tried giving houses for sweat equity in the early 80's ya, 200 hours of mostly painting. that went over so well that the houses were wrecked and abandoned within 5 years.
recently the govt tried sub-prime lending for the marginal customers--thats gone even better, no?
lets try giving cars to everyone who has a drivers license. after all, they have been trained. and they need and deserve transportation. so what if they can't trouble shoot a simple problem before it brakes down--we will fix it for them or replace it. after all, we gave them the 1st one, right?

quote:
"Something is more valuable to us when we have worked for it.

Handouts have not helped America."

true. a sad truth. but the truth non the less
i am 100% behind making available classes and training to those legal to own/carry and who want to. but they have to put more behind the 'want' than just a vocal desire.
in class i offer a spouse 1/2 price such that both in the house are trained in safety.
1 on 1 training also 1/2 price or free to the spouse.
a local college is forming a marksmanship club and i have beeen contacted and will help out as much as needed. planning, speaking and perhaps in time guest those interested to my club.

 

[3KillerBs]

just dumping a truckload of guns

Not doing that was what the training component of my proposal was about. Teach people gun safety and teach them the law about defensive shooting and you also teach them that they are allowed to refuse to be victimized.

I think that a lot of people here may not have ever been in the situation where $300 was an astronomical figure that couldn't be found in the budget unless you stopped eating.

I've been in that situation a few times. Thank God I lived in a quiet, small town with little crime because the baseball bat I had next to my bed when my DH was out of town wouldn't have done me a lot of good in a more dangerous area. Of course up in dear, old Taxachusetts I probably couldn't have had a handgun if I could have afforded one.

 

[3KillerBs]

govt tried giving houses for sweat equity in the early 80's ya, 200 hours of mostly painting. that went over so well that the houses were wrecked and abandoned within 5 years.

Never heard of that one. I was a teenage then. Habitat for Humanity seems to work pretty well though.

 

[3KillerBs]

I think some people are missing the point.

Anti-crime programs are going to exist. Tax money is going to be spent on something.

Would it not be better to do something more effective with that money?

Or should we watch our tax dollars go down the drain as we shrug our shoulder and say, "We don't have any better ideas"?

I'm catching a definite strain of elitism in the idea that only people who are superior enough to already understand the connection between RKBA and freedom and who already have plenty of money for weapons, ammo, permits, and training deserve to be able to stand up to the predators.

"Give a man a fish, ..." yes, there's no lasting effect -- but he's not going to starve tonight and that's a good start.

"Teach man to fish, ..." is definitely a better idea. But there aren't going to be all that many takers for fishing lessons if they first have to spend $500 on bait and tackle.

How about we give them a cheap but effective fishing rod, some line, a few hooks, and a styrofoam cup of worms so they can get started -- and discuss good ways to ensure that they work hard enough to appreciate the value instead of dismissing the idea outright?

Remember, the money that we might be spending on those fishing rods is already being spent to buy fish.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think that the many of the "helpless" are currently stripped of their RKBA simply by where they live (urban areas tending to have a much tougher gun law outlook than other areas).

But they are also hurt--and perhaps moreso--by the "culture of helplessness" that can pervade underpriviledged communities: the idea that some things as basic as protecting yourself, getting food and clothes for your kids and a roof over your head are beyond your control. I don't mean occasionally--I mean always. By the design of the universe. The only choice you have is to depend on the "kindness of strangers," including the gov't. And we all know how the phrase, "I'm from the gov't--I'm here to help" usually works out.

This is a huge area of modern controversy: was GWB right, and all people (including Iraqis) desire freedom, and you just have to prepare the soil (even if that takes a HECK of a lot longer than you thought) and freedom will eventually take root? Or are the (?racist ?culturalist) views that only SOME people can handle freedom (while others are far better off being ruled) more generally descriptive of the human being?

I think that if you could pierce the culture of helplessness, so that the less fortunate most often wanted to help themselves, instead of supporting those who promise them a bigger hand-out, that would accomplish what you want, 3KillerBs.

But until people WANT the burden of being responsible for protecting themselves (that is, until they can admit that it IS always their burden, and cannot be successfully "outsourced" to the police and to the government generally), handling out guns would be of no more use than handing out seeds to people who feel it's someone else's job to farm.

I agree with Serena. (You think people abusing their foodstamps to buy alcohol, etc. is a controversy--wait till people start selling the guns you gave them for the cash they'd rather have!)

 

[Claude Clay]

habitat for humanity works cause it involves the end owner and the family from making the hole in the ground to the last brick in the chimmny. they 'know' the house and have real sweat equity in it. an entire community works to put up these scatter site houses ( not clusters) and forms a bond. h for h works for these reasons. and it helps that it is human nature that the harder you work for something, the more dear you will hold it to you.

 

[KBintheSLC]

But they are also hurt--and perhaps moreso--by the "culture of helplessness" -Loosedhorse

I think you hit something important here. I am all for "teaching someone to fish", but this "culture of helplessness" will likely make that impossible. You have to understand one painful fact about the majority of the people 3KB is targeting to help. Most of them don't want to help themselves. Instead, they believe that the government is responsible for everything, from providing food/shelter/water, to giving them personal protection and security.

Now, I understand and appreciate where 3KB is coming from, but I think its the free handouts that got a lot of these folks in the gutter in the first place.

 

[3KillerBs]

I think that if you could pierce the culture of helplessness, so that the less fortunate most often wanted to help themselves, instead of supporting those who promise them a bigger hand-out, that would accomplish what you want, 3KillerBs.

Remembering again that the money is GOING TO BE SPENT ANYWAY, because anti-crime money is already being spent on nonsensical things like gun "buy-backs" and "teaching" women to make themselves puke or wet their pants as a means of fending off rapists, can you think of something better?

As a straight-up, crime-reduction matter, is there anything likely to work better than arming all law-abiding, adult citizens? Data says nothing cuts crime like guns in citizens' hands.

As a piece of RKBA activism, would seeing a few, adventurous towns try this type of program and watching their crime stats fall make it more or less likely that those anti-gun city and state governments would be forced by their own voters to ease back on their "gun control" laws?

I stated right off that this can't happen all over. And yes, in those blighted areas where a culture of crime and helplessness is far advanced the effect might be slight (though they could hardly be slighter than what's already eating that money).

But in the right places -- places that are seeing a decline and would like to put on the brakes -- I think it would be money well spent with the potential for major returns as the ripples spread.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Remembering again that the money is GOING TO BE SPENT ANYWAY...can you think of something better?

Sure: give it to me.

Maybe a tax-credit for gun and ammo purchase (offsets the tax on them), and on dues for joining a gun club that promotes gun safety/responsibility and marksmanship.

If a person uses his gun in self-defense, and is prosecuted and acquitted, then all of his/her court and incidental expenses should be re-imbursed (This is only present today, I believe, in Washington state, and only for court expenses--still it's a major deterrent against abusive prosecution by self-serving DAs).

By rewarding those of us who help the COMMUNITY by legally arming ourselves (thereby deterring criminals generally), and by "holding harmless" those who legally defend themselves (likely thereby ending the criminal career of a serial felon), we will change the perception of firearms ownership from something the community "has to tolerate" into something the community values and rewards--maybe that will change people's minds on how we help the "helpless."

But we're getting a little Polyanna-ish here, aren't we? In reality, any excess crime-control money is going to get sucked into the War on Drugs, isn't it?

 

[Pilgrim]

I expect a lot of these free guns will end up being pawned for beer or drugs.

Pilgrim

 

[3KillerBs]

I expect a lot of these free guns will end up being pawned for beer or drugs.

Adult, non-felon, citizens capable of passing the training course and the background checks.

Not infallible, but should weed out some of the problems of that sort.

And even if that did occur, the benefits of having a well-armed citizenry would accrue to society and the drawbacks of deliberately choosing to return to being unarmed prey would largely strike the fools themselves.

If only a handful of lives are saved it would be more than are saved by telling women to puke on their rapists.

 

[BBQLS1]

What happens when they take the gun you gave them and sell it? Or if they take it to a gun buy back program?

A low cost program would be better..... Maybe just a free educational seminar (or CCW class) leaving the purchase of a firearm to the person.

 

[Claude Clay]

perhaps take a giant step backwards to the 60's when guns and gun safety was taught in the schools from the elementary all the way through high school varsity shooting teams.
whats old is new again

 

[Picard]

I like the idea but I don't advocate giving away free stuff. I would agree with bulk purchasing and offering discounts, however.

 

[the foot]

Arm people??

A hard-working honest grandma would get a weapon, and her drug-fired grandson would take it from her and commit crime or sell it to other criminals.

You know that would happen.

 

[PaladinX13]

Recently, I brought up the point that if people claim to want to empower the "oppressed" (meaning women, poor people, and minorities of assorted ethnic origins in the definition of debate opponent), and reduce crime the most effective means the data supports would be to offer firearms training and to give a free gun to any adult, non-felon, US citizen who completed the training in a satisfactory manner (obeying all relevant laws for background checks, etc, of course).

You could say the same thing about religion, civil service, public participation, etc. ... why guns? Why not any of these? The answer...

Political factors would prevent such a program from actually happening all over the country

... exactly right. There's no mandate for it. If the people don't want it then you're just going to force the program out of their funding by fiat? That's contrary to the civic republic ideals the nation was founded on and still- sometimes- aspires to be.

Laws, programs, entitlements like these should not be from the top down in a nation like this... it should be the clamoring of the people who push their representatives into such initiatives. The problem, sometimes, with the insular gun culture is that we forget that we're a minority. The job, then, is to either become a politically significant minority (or even majority) OR build consensus. So you'd have to convince the rest of the populous, "Even if you're not pro-gun this is a good idea." That's how charity or environmental, other niche values, etc. get traction.

"More guns = Less crime" is far from a broadly accepted proposition at this point... right now, you'd get more traction with "gun safety should be ubiquitous" or "self defense is a right". Both are more accepted even if the gun itself isn't yet.

 

[telomerase]

There are GOING TO BE government slavery programs and they ARE GOING TO be funded by our tax dollars. This is a fact of life in the society we live in.

Fixed it for ya

Seriously, in 1860 millions of people thought "slavery was forever". There's no such thing as a "permanent" political climate.

BTW, I don't think socialist gun programs will work any better than socialist education, medicine, mortgage banking, or farming....

 

[Steve Raacke]

Call it elitism but most of the people a program like this would be aimed at are people I would not be comfortable with owning guns. I live in a low income area. I work in a low income job. The job is in a medical setting. I see people everyday who have physical and mental issues which, while not making them criminal, make them, well, not someone I'd trust with a gun. They often make bad decisions due to lack of education, emotional or mental issues. The last thing I'd want to see is many of these people having access to firearms. I'm sorry if that sounds kind of harsh but that's just the way I see it.