Baseball, Apple Pie, and a .45 ACP.

Back in my days working in the often slimey underbelly that is the Baltimore nightclub world, I was afforded many opportunities to argue with liberals. Liberals, especially idealistic college-aged liberals, are my favorite people to argue with. For the most part, I find arguing with political conservatives to be fairly boring (their religeous counterparts on the other hand, can be a different story). In my experience, they tend to be more confident in their socio-political beliefs, and more accepting (if not approving) of the basic fact that not everyone agrees with them or ever will. As such they tend to be more reserved, less willing to submit to their emotions and get all riled up. And as soon as they do, the conversation is over.

Not liberals, though. They feed on their emotions. They think with their emotions. What they say, and whether or not it has anything to do with reality, is secondary to how it makes them feel. They're like religeous conservatives in this regard. I suppose this makes sense, since their politics indeed are their religeon. An indignant liberal ranting on about pretty much anything is about as natural and expected as an indignant Jerry Fallwell ranting on about gays.

Occasionally, the subject of guns-&-gun-control comes up. My favorite. As you may have already deduced, I'm a big pro-second ammendment type. While gun control is not as clean cut of a right vs. left issue as things like taxes, unions and affirmative action, it is still most common that liberal = pro gun control and conservative = anti gun control. For the purposes of this essay, we'll assume this is a given.

When I argue about guns with a liberal, certain rhetorical questions almost always come up:

"Well, do you think people should be allowed to have assault weapons?!

To which I respond:

"Define assault weapon. I reckon this beer bottle would be an assault weapon if I broke it open and assaulted you with its shards. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to have beer?"

OK, I should have left that question alone, but bear with me. The Great 10 Cent Question always comes next:

"Well, well, do you think people should be allowed to own an AK-47?!!"

I call it The Great 10 Cent Question because if I had a dime for everytime some liberal jackass asked me it I'd be rich. AK-47. It's always the AK-47. It's never the M-5, or a Bushmaster post-ban AR-15 with a tactical scope and bipod, or even an Uzi. I doubt most of these dweebs could tell you what ammo the AK-47 fires, or name three countries that produce them (hint: they don't come "straight outta Compton"), or pick one out of a lineup alongside a Mini-14, a pump action 12 guage and a golden retriever. But Dr. Dre used to rap about them, so I guess these liberal kids, ever in touch with "the street", must be experts on the matter.

Rich though I may be, I'd still give every dime back for the look on their faces when I inform them:

"I own and AK-47."

I got it at a gun show in MD, for a good price. It's not the finest weapon I own, but the ammo is relatively cheap and it's fun to take to the plinking range.

But I'm getting off point. The fact is that guns, while not foolproof, are still the most effective weapons of self defense available, when used properly by a knowledgeable and safety-minded person. Guns are the cancellation of Darwin. A .38 snub levels the playng field between a 5' 4" woman and a 6' 6" rapist, and that's if they're both armed. If only she is, then the rapist better get the fuck out of Dodge. A shotgun can enable an 80 year old man to defend his home against intruders a quarter of his age. The list goes on.

"But Whiskey," you might say, "what about all the people murdered with guns? If there were no guns, wouldn't have been murdered with guns!"

True. They wouldn't have been murdered with guns. But there are other ways. I sincerely doubt that 5' 4" woman is particularly relieved when that 6' 6" rapist beats her to death, or stabs her, or cuts her throat, or chokes her instead of shooting her. The end result is pretty much the same. I'd reckon however, that women all over the city where said rapist does his crimes are mighty relieved when they pick up the newspaper and read that he finally fucked with the wrong bitch and the loaded handgun in her purse or pocket. A dead rapist is always the best kind. Dead muggers, home invaders and murderers are nice too.

But regardless, all of this "if we didn't have guns" talk is moot anyway: we do have guns. They exist. We couldn't un-invent them even if it was a good idea. As long as there are people who know how to make them, they will be among us.

So will criminals, and criminals will always be able to acquire guns. Make all the gun control laws you want. Criminals won't obey them. The law abiding will, however, and that puts the good guys (you and me) at a distinct disadvantage under the bad guys. For the results of this, one need look no further than my neighbor to the south, our nations's capital, Washington DC.

Gun ownership is almost completely outlawed in DC. Handguns are banned altogether. Rifles and shotguns must be kept not only under lock and key (as in a safe), but disassembled as well. Pretty fucking useless if someone breaks into your home, which is not an uncommon crime in DC. That's why all the windows have bars on them. Despite these draconian and unconstitutional restrictions, DC has held the highest murder rate in America fourteen of the last fifteen years (Detroit took the bottom prize in 2001). The criminal element in DC is brazen beyond belief. They know the citizenry hasn't the firepower to oppose them. Chicago has a similar gun ban in place, and has the greatest raw number of murders commited most years (Chi-town's per capita murder rate is still lower than DC's, but DC has less than 600,000 people in it, while Chicago has nearly 3 million). San Francisco just enacted a gun ban that went into effect about three weeks ago. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the crime and murder rates in the City of Brotherly Intercourse.

"But Whiskey, defending yourself with a gun is vigilanteism! You should call the police if you're attacked!"

For what? So they can show up after my attacker is gone and outline my corpse with their little chalk? I'll call them, sure. After I've successfully defended my own life and well being. Maybe by that time my attacker has gotten away. Maybe he got spooked at the site ( or sound) of Chuck, my Chas. Daly 1911 model .45 ACP (yes, I named my favorite gun). Or maybe he's dead, or seriously injured. The important part is, I'm not. Lois Cannaday of Durham NC called the police. She was already dead when the police showed up, only four minutes later. The national average for response times to 911 calls is about 5 minutes. The average for DC is 8.

I have nothing against law abiding people being vigilant. I do not fear good people carrying guns.