Bill Boyne defends defenselessness

Bill Boyne believes in the forcible disarmament of all American civilians who are not law enforcement officers. Gun rights activists (of whom I like to flatter myself as being a member) tend to be seen as paranoid when they accuse someone of advocating the complete abolition of private ownership of firearms, but there's no risk of that here--this guy comes right out and says it (in the title of his op-ed piece).

Bill Boyne: Guns should be restricted to soldiers, police officers

He certainly cannot be accused of ambiguity, or of beating around the bush.

A recent report by the U.S. Justice department indicates that Americans were victimized by gun violence in 2005 at a greater rate than in the previous year, after a long decline.

And the obvious solution to a brief interruption of what Boyne himself refers to as "a long decline" of violence committed with guns is to use the Bill of Rights as a Charmin substitute.

Mr. Boyne does, I trust, remember that there is an amendment between the First and Third. Actually, throwing away the Second Amendment would not be nearly enough to disarm America. With between 250 and 300 million (estimates vary) privately owned firearms in the country, you're not going to be able to avoid missing millions of them (whose owners have suddenly been rendered criminals, by decree) without, at the bare minimum throwing out the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, too.

At the same time, the New York Times published an article that should be considered in the light of the report on gun violence. It lists the volume of small arms produced throughout the world and -- to no one's surprise -- the United States is by far the largest producer.

According to the Times, the U.S. exports $533 million worth of small arms every year.

I would have thought that Boyne would be happy about guns leaving the country--he clearly doesn't want them here.

The newspaper also reports that 1,000 people are killed every day worldwide by small arms fire -- 365,000 people per year. Of those killed, 56 percent are victims of homicides, 25 percent die in war, 14 percent are suicides and 5 percent die in firearms accidents. In addition, three people are wounded for every person killed. That would indicate a total of 1,460,000 people killed and wounded annually with small weapons throughout the world.

Here, Boyne includes the 25% killed and wounded in wars (which would, by his numbers, be 365,000). But remember, he doesn't advocate disarming soldiers (they would be among what David Codrea refers to as the "Only Ones")--so Boyne's Final Solution to the "epidemic of gun violence" wouldn't have any effect on that number. Anyway, I guess he just forgot to mention how disarming Americans will reduce the death toll in Sudan, or the Gaza strip.

However, the National Rifle Association and other gun enthusiasts maintain a constant pressure on political leaders to make gun usage more prevalent.

I would certainly be interested in seeing the text of any legislation backed by the NRA, or any other gun rights organization, that would require someone to use a gun. Those of us who defend gun rights are certainly more than willing to respect everyone's right to not use a gun--anyone who wants to abdicate all responsibility for his/her personal security is certainly entitled to do so. I firmly believe in the right to be contemptible.

The state of Florida has passed "shoot first" legislation -- laws that give a gun wielder the right to shoot first in various circumstances.

Actually, the legislation referred to here is more accurately described as "stand your ground," or "castle doctrine" legislation, and it has passed in more states than just Florida. I suppose it could be said that it recognizes a law-abiding citizen's right to shoot first--but is Mr. Boyne suggesting that the correct approach is to let the criminal shoot first? Maybe I'm just not as tough as Mr. Boyne, but I don't intend to take a bullet I could otherwise avoid, just to be "sporting" in defense of my life against a thug.

Under the Florida law, if you believe you are threatened with death or great bodily harm, you can pull your gun and pull the trigger. This could be in your home, in your car, at public meetings or at any place you might be.

The arrogant audacity of those people--thinking they have the right to defend their lives--wherever they are! If you're not willing to die at the grocery store, you shouldn't be shopping--right, Bill?

Under this law, the person holding the gun is judge and jury.

No, actually that person is the survivor, and I'm at a loss as to why that's a bad thing for a law-abiding citizen to be.

Laws of this kind can only increase the inordinate number of people killed and wounded by gunfire.

Evidently, Boyne would prefer that they be killed or wounded by knives, clubs, and bare hands. Keep in mind that all one has to do in order to avoid being shot under such laws is to not cause someone to believe that you plan to kill or badly injure him/her. That would seem rather easily accomplished.

It is time to cut down on crime and restrict guns to soldiers and police officers.

Let's see if I have this right--it's time to cut down on crime . . . by rendering the vast majority of people helpless to resist it. That's brilliant, and it has inspired me--let's cut down on obesity, by permitting only a select, elite few to have food.

In Boyne's version of Utopia, there would be two kinds of people--police and military on the one hand, and helpless, cowering sheep on the other. The good news for him is that such places can be found in the world. The bad news is that there are quite a few people who, like me, will fight to the death before we see the United States become such a place. Molon labe, Bill.