Monkeyleg
Member.
Too bad Mr. Kane's dad didn't do a better job of teaching young Eugene the value of self-defense. Or did he not do so because the elder Mr. Kane could have gotten five years in a federal penetentiary for that "sawed-off" shotgun? Or do you even believe any of Eugene's story?
***********
Guns in homes create more risk than safety
Posted: April 28, 2007
Eugene Kane
*
It seemed like a curious question to pose to a presidential candidate. But given current events, it wasn't totally irrelevant.
During last week's debate among Democratic candidates for president, NBC News anchor Brian Williams asked for a show of hands:
How many had ever kept a gun in their home?
After the massacre of 32 innocent people at Virginia Tech University by a deranged gunman, it seemed like a timely - albeit "loaded" - question for the men and woman vying to become the country's next chief executive.
Five of the eight - former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware - raised their hands. Front-runners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards did not.
It's a safe bet this was one of the few times in history that a group of presidential candidates was asked if they were gun owners in such a prominent forum. I can't imagine someone asking George Washington or Abraham Lincoln if they owned a gun, or making any kind of judgment about their qualifications for office based on their answer.
Do you think anybody cared if Richard Nixon owned a gun? (OK, maybe.)
After the Virginia Tech shootings, the debate over whether tougher gun control laws could have prevented the rampage began anew, with each side accusing the other of exploiting the tragedy.
That the gunman bought handguns even with a history of mental instability underlined the need to close at least one glaring loophole. That the arrangement to purchase one of the guns was made on the Internet also demonstrated how easily people with dubious motives can get access to firearms in the age of point-and-click shopping.
After my column on the Virginia Tech shootings questioned why so many continue to tolerate the carnage caused by handguns, I heard from the usual suspects, too. They imagined me as another weak-minded pacifist with no knowledge of gun ownership and with no friends or family who advocate the use of guns for protection.
They are wrong.
If someone asked me the same question the Democratic candidates were asked, my answer would be yes. I grew up in a household where guns were kept.
My late father owned several guns during my childhood, including a heavy .357 Magnum pistol and a sawed-off shotgun he kept in the basement. A construction worker, my father had no real use for the guns other than the protection of his home and family in an inner city Philadelphia neighborhood that was tougher than some but nowhere as violent 40 years ago as some of Milwaukee's worst neighborhoods are today.
My father kept the pistol handy; on occasion it lay on the top of a dining room bureau in plain sight. After the sun set, my father would keep the gun by his bed table. If someone happened to ring the doorbell after a certain time of night, my father took the gun with him to the front door.
He told me that he practiced his aim by shooting garbage pails filled with dirt at various job sites. He never offered to teach me or my younger brother to shoot; it wasn't meant to be a skill passed down from father to son. I have never owned a gun and never intend to.
It was hard to imagine my father, with his hypertension and bad eyesight, using his weapon in a drastic situation. I suspect the gun was mainly intended to give him a sense of security in his home that had been lacking during an earlier time in his life.
The gun never represented real danger to me until my teenage years, when I often found myself fearful whenever trying to sneak back into the house after curfew. I knew the slightest sound would arouse my light-sleeping father to set off on patrol to find out the source of the noise.
The idea that he might shoot me by accident became more than enough motivation to get home at a reasonable hour.
There are many solid reasons why Americans own guns, but those who grow up with guns in the household understand it often represented more risk than safety. My father carried his handgun illegally for years. After he retired, he applied for his first carry permit, mainly to respect the wishes of a police officer who had moved onto his block.
To the best of my knowledge, my father never fired his gun at anybody.
I argue with National Rifle Association supporters all the time that the "Clint Eastwood" syndrome that convinces ordinary Americans they could defend themselves against an armed criminal is a dangerous fantasy that fuels much of the resistance to gun control. The people who envision a better conclusion in the Virginia Tech shootings if only students had been allowed to carry guns continue to delude themselves with a dubious scenario in which more guns equal less violence, not more.
I'm not sure if the fact that Obama, Clinton and Edwards rejected personal gun ownership makes them better candidates. But it does suggest the major players in this race recognize there are few good reasons for ordinary citizens to pack heat and way too many reasons why they should not. The same applies for most Americans if they don't allow paranoia and fear to dictate their actions.
We don't need more guns to feel safer in our homes; we need fewer. The next president can lead the way by example.
Contact Eugene Kane at (414) 223-5521 or [email protected].
***********
Guns in homes create more risk than safety
Posted: April 28, 2007
Eugene Kane
*
It seemed like a curious question to pose to a presidential candidate. But given current events, it wasn't totally irrelevant.
During last week's debate among Democratic candidates for president, NBC News anchor Brian Williams asked for a show of hands:
How many had ever kept a gun in their home?
After the massacre of 32 innocent people at Virginia Tech University by a deranged gunman, it seemed like a timely - albeit "loaded" - question for the men and woman vying to become the country's next chief executive.
Five of the eight - former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware - raised their hands. Front-runners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards did not.
It's a safe bet this was one of the few times in history that a group of presidential candidates was asked if they were gun owners in such a prominent forum. I can't imagine someone asking George Washington or Abraham Lincoln if they owned a gun, or making any kind of judgment about their qualifications for office based on their answer.
Do you think anybody cared if Richard Nixon owned a gun? (OK, maybe.)
After the Virginia Tech shootings, the debate over whether tougher gun control laws could have prevented the rampage began anew, with each side accusing the other of exploiting the tragedy.
That the gunman bought handguns even with a history of mental instability underlined the need to close at least one glaring loophole. That the arrangement to purchase one of the guns was made on the Internet also demonstrated how easily people with dubious motives can get access to firearms in the age of point-and-click shopping.
After my column on the Virginia Tech shootings questioned why so many continue to tolerate the carnage caused by handguns, I heard from the usual suspects, too. They imagined me as another weak-minded pacifist with no knowledge of gun ownership and with no friends or family who advocate the use of guns for protection.
They are wrong.
If someone asked me the same question the Democratic candidates were asked, my answer would be yes. I grew up in a household where guns were kept.
My late father owned several guns during my childhood, including a heavy .357 Magnum pistol and a sawed-off shotgun he kept in the basement. A construction worker, my father had no real use for the guns other than the protection of his home and family in an inner city Philadelphia neighborhood that was tougher than some but nowhere as violent 40 years ago as some of Milwaukee's worst neighborhoods are today.
My father kept the pistol handy; on occasion it lay on the top of a dining room bureau in plain sight. After the sun set, my father would keep the gun by his bed table. If someone happened to ring the doorbell after a certain time of night, my father took the gun with him to the front door.
He told me that he practiced his aim by shooting garbage pails filled with dirt at various job sites. He never offered to teach me or my younger brother to shoot; it wasn't meant to be a skill passed down from father to son. I have never owned a gun and never intend to.
It was hard to imagine my father, with his hypertension and bad eyesight, using his weapon in a drastic situation. I suspect the gun was mainly intended to give him a sense of security in his home that had been lacking during an earlier time in his life.
The gun never represented real danger to me until my teenage years, when I often found myself fearful whenever trying to sneak back into the house after curfew. I knew the slightest sound would arouse my light-sleeping father to set off on patrol to find out the source of the noise.
The idea that he might shoot me by accident became more than enough motivation to get home at a reasonable hour.
There are many solid reasons why Americans own guns, but those who grow up with guns in the household understand it often represented more risk than safety. My father carried his handgun illegally for years. After he retired, he applied for his first carry permit, mainly to respect the wishes of a police officer who had moved onto his block.
To the best of my knowledge, my father never fired his gun at anybody.
I argue with National Rifle Association supporters all the time that the "Clint Eastwood" syndrome that convinces ordinary Americans they could defend themselves against an armed criminal is a dangerous fantasy that fuels much of the resistance to gun control. The people who envision a better conclusion in the Virginia Tech shootings if only students had been allowed to carry guns continue to delude themselves with a dubious scenario in which more guns equal less violence, not more.
I'm not sure if the fact that Obama, Clinton and Edwards rejected personal gun ownership makes them better candidates. But it does suggest the major players in this race recognize there are few good reasons for ordinary citizens to pack heat and way too many reasons why they should not. The same applies for most Americans if they don't allow paranoia and fear to dictate their actions.
We don't need more guns to feel safer in our homes; we need fewer. The next president can lead the way by example.
Contact Eugene Kane at (414) 223-5521 or [email protected].
