We Won’t Get Fooled Again
On the drive to work, I usually listen to local radio station that has a typical morning two-man shock-jock kind of show. These guys are pretty notorious for their April Fool’s Day pranks. For example, a couple of years ago the local post offices got mobbed because these guys announced that the USPS was issuing a 3-cent Dale Earnhardt commemorative stamp.
This year, they were talking about a program called Arm the Homeless, in which homeless people would be given free firearms (I missed the part where they gave the motivation for this; I assume it’s because the homeless can’t afford to buy their own guns). They took some calls from some pretty irate people who apparently didn’t realize it was a joke. Most objected to the program because they thought that homeless people might be more likely to commit crimes if armed.
Now, it’s my understanding that there’s a rather high rate of mental health problems among the homeless. Suppose we assume that the NICS check would disqualify those individuals (as well as the ones with criminal records). Do you, our loyal readers, think it would be unwise to arm the sane-yet-homeless non-felons?
April 1st, 2004 at 11:59 am
Since I’ve had homeless in some cities throw rocks at me and my car when I wouldn’t pony up some cash, I’m not sure how excited I’d be if they could lob bullets at me instead. Maybe those folks I interacted with weren’t the sane ones though.
April 1st, 2004 at 12:05 pm
On a trip through Atlanta where I took the wrong turn, crackwhore walks up to my driver side window and aks for money to buy her baby some food. I tell her i’ll go to McD’s and buy her a couple of burgers but I won’t give her cash. I then get the whole head-bobbing oh no, you just didn’t crap. She took a swing at my window but she only weighed like 80 lbs so she didn’t do any damage.
A gun would make her a much more efficient panhandler.
April 1st, 2004 at 2:17 pm
I dunno. Can they demonstrate proficiency with a gun? Of course, that’s not a requirement for gun ownership even now, so what am I thinking?
April 1st, 2004 at 3:27 pm
My first reaction would be “HELL NO”
Easily Stolen, Mental issues, and the general lack of respect for human life in general.
But after further thought, it would be a great Idea in many ways.
If in a worse case scenario, it dramatically increased the random shooting rates, most people would be more interested in carrying to protect themselves, as well as dawinism would take hold of the homeless.
Secondly, I really do believe an armed society is a better society, as ilustrated in the book “The Probability Broach”
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812538757/102-4259145-1988109?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I3JW788C189RY1&colid=3PUETXVBUR7BV
Although is is not realistic, I almost believe passing out cheaper 9mm handguns and ammo for free to ANYONE that wants it would make the world a better place. After the stupid were purged.
And yes I am half joking
April 1st, 2004 at 5:26 pm
I have problems with any socilaized program, but that aside…
No I don’t see a problem with it. The objections brough up about “arming the homeless” would require only minor changes to argue against arming the jobless, or the divorced, or the poor. & with a few more changes the arguments could be tailored to argue against arming the commuters or the middle class or the elderly or the young.
So I have no problem at all with anyone who wants to be armed being armed. If they attempt to threaten or use force against someone else, then odds are they’ll be dealt with approproiately – well if everyone has their Right to Arms respected. But in general I don’t think it’ll be much of a problem, as anyone wo wants a gun usually has little trouble finding one despite the civilian disarmament laws.
April 1st, 2004 at 6:02 pm
“Can they demonstrate proficiency with a gun? Of course, that’s not a requirement for gun ownership even now, so what am I thinking?”
Tom, just to play Devil’s advocate…
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The first amendment guarantees a free press.
Question: should just anyone be allowed to blog, or should people have to take a test to demonstrate journalistic proficiency?
I don’t have a problem with Tennessee requiring written tests and shooting tests before issuing carry permits. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t even mind requiring people to get a “firearms owner’s license” similar to a driver’s license (or even more rigorous, for that matter – the test to get a driver’s license is a joke). But in the real world, I think that would just be a first step in denying people the right to own guns.
April 1st, 2004 at 6:03 pm
Won’t work. The guns will be stolen pretty quickly by other homeless and those who prey on them, then end up in the pawn shop for crack money. It’s incredibly difficult for the homeless to keep anything of value.
April 1st, 2004 at 8:11 pm
I think I agree with Mike.
And of course, with Les. I thought about posting something similar, but I’m late as usual.
April 1st, 2004 at 9:19 pm
“Can they demonstrate proficiency with a gun? Of course, that’s not a requirement for gun ownership even now, so what am I thinking?”
It is in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
{swish} Next battah battah battah…
April 2nd, 2004 at 5:40 pm
If a homeless person can pass the NICS, then he can legally buy a gun from an FFL holder. Of course, he can buy a gun from any private individual regardless, and that’s all as it should be.
I think it’s very bad policy, however, to give guns to people who don’t have it together enough to be able to buy one on their own.
In my younger days, I traveled around the country for a year, and spent a lot of time in homeless shelters. A few were there by choice, as I was, and I think any of us could have obtained a firearm if we wanted one, and if there weren’t serious legal impediments to carrying as you travel between jurisdictions. I’m sure at least some carried discreetly and responsibly.
However, I’m sorry to have to say that most were barely competent to tie their own shoes. A few could literally not be trusted to use the toilets; they’d lost their housetraining, and would whip it out and piss where they stood. NICS or not, I wouldn’t have wanted them to be armed.
SO: Anybody who can manage it on their own, fine. Anybody so far gone they need a handgun hand-out–no way.