While browsing the Web, I came across a column by conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds applauding Greenleaf, Idaho, for passing a law in 2006 requiring every house to have a gun. To Reynolds, this is “a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.”

Libertarian novelist L. Neil Smith makes a similar argument in one of his books, that widespread gun ownership is a public-spirited way to help out in an emergency.

But if emergencies are the issue, why focus on gun ownership? Why not require everyone in Greenleaf to learn CPR, say? Or to have a first-aid kit on hand? Or a kit for treating people with allergic reactions? There’s a higher probability any emergency will involve a need for medical skills than a gun.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 am and is filed under Questions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.