During this podcast you mentioned that France has a very low rate of charitable donation per capita. This past weekend we were visiting friends in Montreal. At one point in his career my friend had run a charity and he commented that it was a lost cause in Quebec as the majority French population of Quebec generally felt that taxes constituted charity and traditionally donated very little per capita to charities.

So my question Patrick, would you say is this a French cultural trait or just a coincidence?

I think you make some good points, Patrick. Ultimately, a society has to make its own decisions as to where to draw the line. In my experience, Americans in general are more skeptical of government power while Europeans tend to have less of a problem. For many Americans, the right to own a firearm goes beyond having one for protection–some people like to exercise their rights, not unlike someone who likes to vote. For me, possessing a firearm is a huge responsibility which I do not take lightly. Most of my firearms have trigger locks on them (so in case someone gets a hold of one, they can’t use it–I’m especially wary because I have children in the house). One thing I cannot stand is an idiot who does not know how to handle a firearm and I have actually disarmed people who I felt were being irresponsible with them–maybe not the smartest thing to do, but my Marine training kicks in. Firearms give the bearer a huge power–the power to kill. As we know from Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. However, I have been shooting guns since I was eight years old and was taught how to handle them responsibly by my father and firearm safety was further ingrained in my head during my Marine years.

It’s probably a good thing for France that it restricts firearms. The people seem to be for it. But it would not be a good thing in the United States. What works for one society does not always work for others.

The one thing I disagree with though is the idea that guns will protect you. Not because it isn’t true, but because it plays on the very pernicious argument of total security. You tell people: “hey look, had you had a gun, you would have been *safe*!!” (insert scary graphic here).
The problem is, you can’t be *safe*. You can’t make sure that nothing will ever happen to you. It could be a mad man in the street with a knife, it could be a swine flu virus and it could be aliens landing in your back yard. The point is that you need to evaluate the benefits and the disadvantages of the right to bare arms, not just wave the idea of insecurity. Fear is always the easy argument.

So I’m not saying security is not a valid argument, I’m just saying the downside *might* not be worth the upside, and it should at least be considered.

I guess my thoughts can be summed up as: I really don’t like FUD. And it’s used a lot these days unfortunately.

As to gun rights being just a conservative issue, you can find plenty of democrats that support the right to bear arms, particularly in western states. I live in New Mexico and most of our Congressional caucus gets high marks from the National Rifle Association.

Also, while the Federal constitution guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms, you should also look at the State constitution as most not only guarantee the right to bear arms, but provide much more expansive rights/protections for gun owners.

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. I served in the Marines and have a powerful respect for firearms and I am technically proficient in their use. I don’t play with my guns as they are not toys. I have a license to carry a concealed firearm and I had to take a 20 hour class and a criminal background check prior to having that license issued to me. In New Mexico, one can carry a gun legally in public so long as it is not concealed (unless one has a concealed weapons license) and, believe it or not, there are places in New Mexico I have been to where it is not uncommon to see people packing a pistol on their belt.

I don’t always carry a pistol with me, but I almost always have one in my car. I am the person you want to carry a firearm because I am responsible and I know how and when to use it. Since New Mexico has enacted the concealed carry law in 2004, there have been at least two instances where licensees have used their weapons to defend themselves and others. In particular, a licensee in a Walmart shot and killed a man who stabbing his estranged wife in the store, thereby saving her life. If he had not been there, that woman would undoubtedly have been killed. A woman with a concealed weapons license in Colorado shot and killed an attacker who was bent on committing a mass atrocity on the people of her church. So a person with a firearm in the right situation can save lives.

Additionally, studies have shown that less than 1% of people who get a concealed weapons license have that license revoked for mishandling their firearm. This shows that proper education and training can a have positive effect on society.

You can’t count on the police to protect you. 99% of the time, they are showing up after something has already happened.

To your environmental point. That man has impact is undeniable, it’s the amount of impact that is in question, and the science is not settled there. I just find the fact that a lot of global warming studies ignore the activity of the sun very disturbing. I’m going to leave this here as this is a topic for another day. It is very long and involved. I just wanted to get the basics out there.

For gun control it is very basic for me. It is a right we as Americans have. Period. Same as free speech same as the protection against search and seizure, and my right to a jury trial. They are all equal and all important. What you are talking about is more what Randy was saying in the show. The problem comes from poor urban areas and bad social situations. I think violence would go on those areas regardless of guns. While I agree that guns escalate that problem, I think it is a separate issue with weapons as a tagline attached.

I also must warn you and everyone else against the “that will never happen” argument. It is a strawman, and very niave. Things like this may seem like they would never happen, but they have in the recent past. At various times a democratic government has tipped into dictatorship. By having these rights in place we assure that the can never happen.

A great example, yet on a much smaller scale is going on all over the US. In the last 20 years various states passed seatbelt laws. These laws require you wear a seat belt, but they were written to not be a primary offense. So you would not be pulled over for it. They were passed with this ideal, it would be sort of an add on. “You will never be pulled over for not wearing a belt. It will never happen”. It’s happening. Never ever fall into the “it will never happen” trap. It can always happen.