“I was Anti-Gun, until I got Stalked”

by Jason Stotts

Here’s an interesting article from Salon.com about a woman who was against guns, until she was stalked and had to start carrying a gun in order to protect her life.

I told [my boyfriend] a firearm in the house made me nauseous [sic.], that I feared the weapon would be turned on one of us, that there’d be an accident. I told him I believe in compassion and peace. I told him the very idea of a gun was a compromise of my principles.

[My boyfriend] sighed. “Which would you prefer, compromising your principles or getting abducted by Crazy Man?”

That’s when the old Theodore Roosevelt adage popped into my head — “Speak softly and carry a big stick” — and I finally got it. I can still be the compassionate, diplomatic, interfaith groovy gal I’ve always been; I’ll just be packing heat in case negotiations tank.

I find it interesting how many people are quick to say: guns aren’t necessary (for others), but I actually need protection.  For example, judges, prosecutors, politicians, etc, all are able to legally carry weapons, but in many states a regular citizen cannot. (Does the 14th amendment come to mind for anyone else?)

But even just the average liberal (and don’t take this to mean that I’m a Republican) is quick to say that guns are unnecessary and they they kill more innocent people than evil ones.  The facts (2009 FBI Crime Statistics), however, show that when gun ownership increases, violent crime decreases. Furthermore, liberals argue that guns in the home lead to accidental deaths, especially those of children.  Again, though, reality asserts itself.  As we can see from the 2010 Statistical Abstract of the US Census Buereau in 2005 only 789 people in the US died of an accidental discharge of a firearm, in 2006 it was only 642.  Compare that to some of the other things I left in the graphic, like deaths due to cars (45,343/45,316), drowning (3,582/3,579), the flu (1,812/849), tuberculosis(!) (648/652), or complications from professional medical care (2,653/2,521).  Think about that, a medical professional is 3.61 more likely to accidentally kill you than you are to die from an accidental discharge of a firearm.

I think it’s time that we come to realize that while guns can be dangerous, what keeps you safe if not avoiding them, but knowing how to safely use them.  Furthermore, I think the whole debate over whether firearms are killing children in droves should just be over, reality says that it’s just not the case.  A gun in the home is much more likely to keep you safe than it is to harm someone you don’t intend it to and a gun kept safely is nearly no danger at all.

Guns are tools, just like any other.  Sure, we need to be safe with them because they can kill, but sometimes killing is not only necessary, but morally obligatory.  If your life were in danger, wouldn’t you wish you had a gun?  If your family’s life is in danger, wouldn’t you wish you had a gun?  The fact is that guns can keep us safe from those that would wish us harm and for those of us who value life, this is something that we desire.

(Colt 1911)

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

1 Response to ““I was Anti-Gun, until I got Stalked””


  1. Adrian

    You are attacking the problem from the wrong angle and indeed from the very premises that the other side holds and would therefore guarantee you losing the debate.

    What exactly are these principles which the girl holds that makes her against guns?
    She said peace and compassion.
    What does peace have to do with owning a gun?

    Peace is the LACK of the initiation of forceful violations against other human beings.
    In other words, in the ABSENCE of such violations, peace exists.
    However, if there is nothing set into place to deter these INITIAL violations, the chance that our rights will not be violated is very low. Hence, The Law, The Courts, The Police, The Army.
    Each individual retains the right to self-defense, or- the right to forcefully retaliate against and ONLY against the initiator of the force. In order to retaliate against the aggressor ONLY, we need an objective way to find out the truth. That way is through the legal channels. If the threat is imminent, (assault in a dark alley), each individual retains the right to retaliate against that aggressor (self defense).

    The government has and should ONLY have the power to forcefully protect our individual rights in a retaliatory way, since we already have those rights and can therefore delegate them to our government. (Governments rights are derived from its people).
    But how are we to protect our rights in imminent danger if we do not have the necessary tools to do so? Notice the relative absence of attacks on America compared to the absence of attacks on individual citizens by other citizens in America.
    Notice also that the attacks by mad men with guns are almost only in gun free zones.

    In order for a country to have internal peace, it is necessary for its individuals to have the right and the tools to protect ourselves immediately should the need arise.