Trigger Happy

From the WSJ

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.

Not quite clinging or bitter.

2nd Amendment and the Militia

From the Strategy Page something i did not know and definitely shores up gun rights interpretation of the second amendment.

Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)

The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.

Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want

VT

So far the popular focus has been on the obvious tragedy of so much senseless slaughter of innocents and on the insanity of the perpetrator. When we move on from here it will be about whether it could have been prevented and how a repeat can be prevented.
That there will continue to be those who are and or pursue insane acts is a given.
That these offenders will access items to magnify their actions is also a given, whether it be using a car on a crowded sidewalk, a gun in a lecture hall, a blaze in a cafeteria, or a bomb in a crowded market.
Neither of these can be prevented regardless of rules, laws, and regulation. This does not even touch upon the impact of these rules, laws, and regulation will more likely impact and restrict sane and law abiding citizens than the criminal and insane.

But rather than accept futility and victimization there remain possible actions for consideration. Given the opportunity to defend ourselves when faced with imminent threat of death, certainly we all would take steps to defend ourselves. We just need the means to equalize the force threatening us. I am not suggesting that everyone be armed. But I do believe that those with the knowledge and familiarity of firearms, and having been deem safe from sound mind and lawful enough to have a license to carry firearm, be allowed to do so in public places deemed reasonable by each state legislature.

I wish someone at VT had been armed and willing to stop the masacre. That there were those who willingly risked their lives so others could escape demonstrate the "willing to stop the masacre" was not the limiting step. It was the absence of arms except in the hands of a madman.