Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Why I don't live in California

This just in from the inbox:

A southern California man was 51-50'd and placed under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found that he owned 100 guns and allegedly had a million rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.

By southern California standards, someone owning 100,000 rounds is considered "mentally unstable.

If he lived elsewhere:

In Arizona, . . . He'd be called "an avid gun collector."

In Texas , . .. . He'd be called "a novice gun collector."

In Utah, . .. .he'd be called "moderately well prepared," but they'd probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

In Montana , . .. .he'd be called "The neighborhood 'Go-To' guy."

In Idaho , . . . He'd be called "a likely gubernatorial candidate."

In Washington, ……he'd be a "retired Policeman"

And, in Wyoming, . . . He'd be called "an eligible bachelor."

 ~ Author unknown


BBat50 said...

I think this is a great post. I just don't understand why guns, unlike cars, don't have to be registered.

And why gun owners, like drivers, aren't required to be licensed.

Above all else, I have trouble understanding this part of my country's DNA.

Annalea said...

Thanks, BBat50.

Actually, cars weren't ever supposed to be registered in the first place. And licensing of private drivers was an over-extension of the laws for commercial driving licensure. But there's a long backstory for those statements . . . way too long for a comment. ;o)

Historically-speaking, every country that has ever confiscated guns and/or imprisoned gun owners has had registration of guns and/or gun owners. Not requiring registration is a significant protection. That said, gun registration is required in most states, and many, many guns are registered. And THAT said, gun registration has NEVER contributed to lower crime.