This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gun Control: The Big Picture
Preface: I was raised to be against guns. My parents hated guns, and believed that they only lead to crime and to accidental shootings.
Raised in a blue state, I had the stereotype that militias were made of crazies … and so the “right to bear arms” as part of a “well-regulated militia” seemed like a nutty anachronism.
And I have long been deeply influenced by leading voices for non-violence, such as Gandhi and King. So – Until recently – I was pro gun-control. As such, I understand that gun control arguments very well.
Gandhi and the Dalai Lama Were AGAINST Gun Control
I was surprised to learn that two of the best-known promoters of nonviolence in history were not opposed to guns. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi taught that we must first be brave enough to use guns to defend ourselves, and only then can we be qualified to use non-violent methods. For example, Gandhi wrote in his book, An Autobiography (page 446):
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest … if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.
As Gandhi wrote in Doctrine of the Sword:
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.
***
When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.
***
Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
In Between Cowardice And Violence, Gandhi wrote:
He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully …
[When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.
***
A man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward.
Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
Self-defence … is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
As quoted in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said:
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
What the Founding Fathers Said About Guns
The Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here’s what the Founding Fathers actually said about arms:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1764
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
– Ben Franklin
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
–Thomas Paine
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
–Patrick Henry.
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
–Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
–James Madison.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.
To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
– George Mason
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
–Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution ofthe United States (P.Ford, 1888)
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
But SOMETHING Must Be Done to Stop the School Shootings!
History is interesting, but something has to change. Kids are getting murdered in their own schools.
We agree …
The Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience published a study in 2001 showing that one modern anti-depressant is associated with violent acts.
David Healy and David Menkes from Cardiff University, and Andrew Herxheimer from the UK Cochrane Centre, published a study in 2006 showing that antidepressants can cause severe violence in a small number of individuals.
Numerous other mental health experts say that anti-depressants may be a substantial factor in school shootings and other gun-related violence. And see this, this, this, this. If you have any doubt about this, please watch these videos:
Indeed, the number of school shootings, murders and murder-suicides, workplace violence, road rage, and random violence by soldiers by people taking anti-depressants is staggering.
So - whatever else we do to address school shootings - we must either stop pushing anti-depressants on kids or at least stop selling guns to people taking anti-depressants.
How Useful is a Gun Against Tyranny When the Government Has Bigger Weapons?
Of course, the usefulness of a gun as a defense against tyranny depends partly on the types of arms possessed by the government.
As George Orwell – author of 1984 – pointed out in the Tribune (October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current weapon of choice possessed by the government:
The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon–so long as there is no answer to it–gives claws to the weak.The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans–even Tibetans–could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one …The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon–or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting–not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.
If he were alive today, Orwell might say that – unless the American people create and adopt high-tech ways to defend themselves – guns will not be able to compete with drones, robots and other high-tech weapons created by the virtually unlimited American military budget.
On the other hand, as John Aziz notes:
The vast majority of America’s 285 million guns are in Republican states, which are unlikely to be disarmed easily, even with an overwhelming Federal consensus. Some might even try to secede from the Union.
In other words, gun ownership as a deterrence to a tyrannical government might work better in Red States – where a lot of people have guns – than in Blue States.
Note: I strongly believe that safety training is essential. Keep weapons away from kids, and lock up the bullets SEPARATELY so children can’t find them. It is also easy to hang weapons above arm-reach of youngsters. Please be safe.
»
- advertisements -
My Bronx story. After an afternoon Yankee game at older Yankee Stadium me and 3 friends went into a local bar drinking and minding our own business. 6pm came and the bar owner came to us before closing and said look guys, we are leaving, the cops are leaving and I suggest you do the same. No guns in the Bronx yet most package stores do business behind bullett proof glass. Hmmm...
Good for you though. "Don't look for whom the Bells toll...." Take a stroll down Jerome Ave one evening for a breath of fresh air. No guns in the Bronx? Yeah righ. I don't buy bridges either.
"Take a stroll down Jerome Ave one evening for a breath of fresh air. No guns in the Bronx? Yeah righ. I don't buy bridges either."
I've strolled down Jerome Avenue many times since the '70s. And guess what--no drooling monsters lurking in the shadows! Just lots of black and Hispanic people who DON'T GIVE A SHIT that a little ol' white guy like me is walking down the street. You know why? Because they have things to do and places to be, like everyone else. They're just living their lives, like everyone else. Are there guns in the Bronx? Of course there are guns in the Bronx. But I'm telling you right now: The OVERWHELMING majority of people in NYC do not own or carry guns. You know why? Because if we get caught, we GO DIRECTLY TO FUCKING JAIL. They do NOT fuck around here when it comes to guns. So what happens? The vast majority of people figure out a way to get along. And it works just fine. And in the process, we learn not to shit our pants when someone who looks or acts a little differently than we do comes along. You should all try it sometime...
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." – George Washington
If that's the case, then we the people should have tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and missiles, right?
Many of the things the NVA and VC didn't have and you know the outcome in that one.
Can you afford them? If you want to buy an aircraft carrier, knock yourself out.
The idea of our founders was simply that the government shouldn't be allowed to own weapons that the citizens are prohibited from owning.
Are you saying that the U.S. government would allow me to own and operate an armed aircraft carrier if I could afford one?
Are you saying that the ideas of our founders is the same thing as what the US government would allow you to do?
Why don't you read the Second Amendment and ask what "shall not be infringed" means?
Hint: It doesn't mean "shall not be infringed unless the legislature thinks otherwise."
I totally agree but would add that an empty gun with bullets locked away at a separate location is as useful as a rock when it comes to self defense. A safe that uses fingerprint technology to open would be perhaps a better solution. In reality we the people are incapable of defending ourselves agains the tyranny of governement until drones are legal to own and operate by the individual as it is the government. Spying as freely on our politicians and MSM's every movement as they appear to want to do to the American citizen may be the first step in evening the field and assuring some balance of power between government and people.
You should be able to trust good people to do the right thing. Give them the tools they need. CCW is a good cost effective decision that has deterrent value.
You are right we should be able to trust good people to do the right thing but how many times in the past century have "good people" turned out to be the biggest scum bags. Too many times the "good people" ended up being the "killer clown" next door that was just the nicest guy and loved kids so much. The boy scout leader was so good with kids and active in the church and has such a beautiful family. Ted Bundy was so clean cut and so charming and nice.... How do we know who the good people are without a shadow of a doubt?
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" Have truer words ever been spoken?
I am talking in absolute terms, not relative terms. Good means good, always.
Unfortunately human means human in all terms. No such thing as a good person always good. Emotion, experience, prejudice, environment, circumstance all get in the way of "good always being good" I wish I weren't so cynical but all those things above prevents me from believing in good in absolute terms. I saw too much evil in humans by the time I was 10 then should be allowed and I live in America where that shit isn't supposed to happen. I had one prayer which was to let me be an adult as fast as I can so I can control what happens to me the best I can. "Expect the worst and hope for the best" is about the only philosophy I believe in.
Maybe that's the biggest problem in America, we expect fairy tales and are shocked when we get reality. Politicians especially. They are so far removed from reality that the only thing they can think to do is get in front of a camera and give a memorable sound bite.
Given all that, there is no getting around how shocking and sad Newtown is. Adults may deserve bad things happening to them but no 6 year old chld deserves the horror that was visited on them that day or any other day.
I'll repost what I just put on the Drone article:
I should have mentioned this guy last week. It felt sort of biased so I let it go. Elliot Leyton is my father in law's brother. Met him a few times and shared beer and thoughts. An interesting guy. He's a sociologist in Canada dubbed "the man who studies murder." THe CBC did a special on his work a while ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Leyton
He's been looking at murder and gun violence for some time and comparing countries. He concludes much of what many of us has been saying. Well, at least half of it. As many have said, I think a healthy and inherent distrust of government (or any centralized power - religious, commerial, criminal) is at the core of the Second Amendment. An entirely different subject than any psychological or sociological study on prevention. Then again, maybe not.
Leyton's work focused on cause and effect. Still, sociology is such a damn inexact science. Gargantuan variables. But, in the end, that's the point. Leyton concludes (Like, of all people, Michael Moore just announced) that our violence is rooted deep in our culture and has little to do with metal instruments however automatic. I can't disagree with anyone who claims that a psychotic man (or these days, child) with an automatic will kill more but as Leyton observes, those are not the overwhelming factors of our self destruction. It begins with our video games and ends with a 20 year old pentagon soldier playing nearly the same thing but killing children half a globe away. We are numb to this disease and our government is the biggest carrier. This illness is a long time coming and our "solution" will take a little more than legislation.
You forgot to mention Hollywood. The same scummy Hollywood that is deeply involved in video games now.
The eleventh commandment is...
It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Govern yourselves accordingly. Follow all 11 commandments and you should live a good long life.
But those who fight against foreign occupation are bad?
By foreign occupation, I assume you are referring to Israel. Pick a point in time.
The God of Abraham gave the lands to the jews during the times of Moses. Moses is a recognized and respected prophet of Islam. Many waves of foreign conquest swept over the lands of Judea, leaving Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian diaspora in the area. These can be considered immigrants.
Fast forward a 2500+ years and you have the re-establishment of the Lands of the Jews. The world welcomed this.
If the Gazans et al can't get along with their neighbours, they should go back to Egypt, the lands of Babylon, or the lands of Persia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabi_Musa
"The God of Abraham gave the lands to the jews during the times of Moses. Moses is a recognized and respected prophet of Islam."
God also gave ten simple commandments and taught Abraham and Moses the laws of Brotherhood.
It has always been the most ridiculous thing to see a supposed people of God called isreallis that are so about hate and killing, or totally opposite of what God taught and gave in the Ten Commandments. What is outrageous is how they have completely hoodwinked the populations of the world like they have using all sorts of wickedness and deceit. (By deception we make war)
I dare you to name one Commandment that the isrealli immigrants from Kazraria Europe are in compliance with today. There is no respect or compliance with the God's Laws that he gave to those who pretend to be his people. The real undeniable truth is, not one of these commandments are adhered to in isreal. If the world knew what they really thought about Jesus and other world religions, well, there would be no support from the stupid sheep that are left with any reasoning abilities at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALiyDNwgUGY
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-embassys-christ...
The isrealli puppets and nation owned by the rothschilds empire and created specifically and ONLY for the final solution to be the triggering tool of the last world war are the worst evil that has ever plagued the planet. The isrealli commie reptilian synagog of satan is the biggest threat in a world of peaceful intelligent beings. Their god is money. The real people's God is one of Brotherly Love, Faith, Hope, and Charity.
Where's the Love in isreal? Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself? Do unto others? Hummmm...
.
Well said.
"The God of Abraham gave the lands to the jews during the times of Moses"
I love writing my own land title
and a hundred other gods gave a hundred other peoples their lands
now what was the point?
Why would you assume that? We had been talking about US drone strikes that kill children.
The world? Not even all Jews are on board with Judeo-fascism.
"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Do you have proof of that?
Surveys have shown that those who made the "judged by 12" decision fared better mentally, physically, and economically than those who made the "carried by 6" decision.
I think we should have a field study on that.
With the recognized raised level of autism, mental disorders, etc. one has to wonder if something environmental has fundamentally changed the world we live in. There appears to be systemic genetic damage that needs to be addressed by broad use of drugs.
Where did this genetic damage come from? Was the damage incurred while the baby was developing in the womb, or before? What were the lifestyles of the parents like? Is there anything there to point to a cause of this damage?
These things need to be looked into, including the use of birth control. That is a hot-button issue but something is causing genetic damage. The little pill may have a role here.
Pollution.
Genetically modified food.
Processed food.
Lack of nutritive value in food.
Fluroide in water.
Vaccinations.
The entire pharmaceutical drug industry.
Chemtrails.
Radiation from Fukushima.
Just scraping the surface here, but I think i have a few causatives pinned down.
Add to the list, please.
What would you think about injecting potent biological and chemical compounds into young bodies, starting right after birth?
Are you talking about milk? You need to be more specific.
He is referncing vaccnines filled with mercury and aluminum as well as other nasty stuff.
The manufacturers of which W. Bush exempted from any future prosecution from ill effects of their products.
GFY
"
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.
" - Gandhi !
Haha this goes onto my quote list.
I gotta confess it's a bit disquieting when I find myself in total agreement with *this* George Washington. I've read some pretty wacky stuff from this nom de plume.
I agree. I usually ignore his posts.
Dr. Peter Breggin has been on Michael Savage show. He is a very solid guy.
Oba has given guns to:
1. Al qeada/Mo Bro Hood in Egypt, Libya and Syria.
2. Guns to drug cartels in Mexico.
3. And don't forget the endless drone attacks and now drones over the USA.
Now he wants to disarm law abidingl Americans with communist (Foxconn) China urging him on? The China that harvest organs from "political" prisoners and makes them pay for the bullet used to kill them.
The answer is no.
Nobody's gonna take your precious fucking guns away...Obama will be out of office in four years, guns will still be everywhere, and we'll still be having weekly or monthly massacres. Get a grip--your shoot-em-up society will still be rolling merrily along....
Guns are ubiquitous in Switzerland, and they don't seem to be running around the Alps shooting at each other.
It's almost as though guns are inanimate objects like rocks or car keys, which require human input to pose any risk to another human.
Yeah, which means the Swiss are civilized and we Americans are monkeys...
Vooter your anti gun and that is ok but have you ever thought if that stupid gun free law was not in place this might not have happened? All this law did was make a target rich environment of victims that cannot shoot back. All these horrendous crimes happened in gun free zones. Can you not see past your nose the law does not work. Allowing CC on schools in CT will provide a deterrent even if no teachers carries a thing.
Every shooter in these horrendous crimes either stops or shoots themselves when they had a firearm aimed at them either by a person CC or the police.
Although you blame the firearms have you ever thought that just maybe the MSM and the internet plastering his face all over does not contribute to these nut jobs. WOW i can be a heinous killer immortalized forever now. Annually they will show my face once again as they mourn or commerate the act.
Vooter blame who you like but try some critical thinking. This kid did not have all his oars i nthe water killer his mother and then travels to the kindergarten class and shot the kids with two pistols. We can discuss owning firearms responsibly but there is no one that can stop it all.
thanks for putting my mind at ease-also-which panty-waist country you are a citizen of?
I'm right here in the U.S., dumbass--not ALL of us are TV-addled retards....
I will wager $20 on the UK. I'm UK-born, and can detect the attitude.
Of course, the way to combat gun violence is to take away the guns of all those who didn't do it, according to this mindset.
It's the liberal mindset - the tendency toward prohibition. Of course, it never works (mass murder is prohibited in Connecticut, for example).
But it makes them feel BETTER than you, because they CARE more than you.
Even though the net result of disarming the law-abiding is to empower the lawless.
I'm not trying to take away anyone's guns--this place is a fucking zoo, and it'll never happen. All I'm saying is, don't be surprised when the massacres continue, no matter who you try to arm. You're all DREAMING if you think more guns will solve anything. But I guess you'll all just have to learn that the hard way. Just remember--no whining when it doesn't work out....
I'm from the UK too and I'm glad we don't have mass gun ownership here, but I also don't understand how people can be discussing gun control in the US. I've read that there are 400 million legally registered guns in the US... I imagine there are many more than that.
How could such a genie ever be put back in the bottle? Only a fraction of the population would comply. What about the others? You can't jail 40% of the population - especially when they are armed and are having constitutional rights taken away from them.
Gun prohibition works to some extent in the UK because there were never that many guns to start with, but that's surely not an option for the US. It's just pissing in the wind.
I hope that the US can find a formula to drastically reduce the number of mass shootings (ideally eliminate them). If a solution could be found, I imagine the whole world benefit...
...but how do you stop people becoming malcious psychopaths?
Rotten situation :(
"...gun prohibition works here in the UK..."
Really. Well, per a BBC article of 16 July 2001, it seemed that - oh, dear - it seemed that "the use of handguns in crime rose by about 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned." Red faces all 'round, I'll woiger. Then of course, in our headlong flight to get away from THAT most unfortunate statistic, we run smack dab into an article from the 'Doily Moil', dated 27 Oct 2009, which informs us that "gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent."
"Working well", you say?
actually, since we're quoting: gun prohibition works TO SOME EXTENT in the UK. If you're going to argue against a point, quote the point as it was stated - don't try alter it.
I also never said anything about it "working well."
My point was that it isn't an option in the US. It is an option here (good or bad), but couldn't be done in the US.
That being the case, gun control also worked *to some extent* at that school in CT, if the standard for "to some extent" is gonna be that lax. After all, the school WAS a 'Gun-Free Zone', and there had _never_ been _any_ mass shootings there before last Friday, correct? So, all in all, should we call it pretty successful in the main?
OK then, to be more specific - there is much less gun violence in the UK than in the US. There is other violence in the UK and it may be simply that other weapons are substituted instead of guns but there are far fewer gun homicides in the UK than the US and (co-incidence or no) there are fewer guns in the UK.
2011 - England and Wales, 0.07 gun homicides per 100,000 population.
2011 - USA, 2.97 gun homicides per 100,000 population.
USA gun homicides 42 times greater than UK in 2011.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
If the US government becomes a tyranny, the US population could mount an armed response. The UK population could not. I have no idea whether the UK gun laws will turn out to be good or bad in the long run, but as things are right now I am happier that there are few guns here.
Either way, prohibition of firearms doesn't seem like an option in the US. I don't understand why people are debating it in the US when they must know that it could never happen.
EDIT: I should have included Northern Ireland (0.3 deaths per 100,000 in 2011) and Scotland (not stated) but even so, UK gun homicides are many times lower than the US.
NOT trying to say that the UK is safer. I'm not certain that the UK is safer but there are far fewer killings using guns and there are far fewer guns. Gun prohibition in the UK seems to result in fewer killings using guns.
"I hope that the US can find a formula to drastically reduce the number of mass shootings (ideally eliminate them)."
I don't--I hope they continue, and that the U.S. collapses into an even bigger pile of shit than it already is. We deserve nothing less...
You're not exactly in the Holiday spirit these days are you?
In these modern days with no morality, little respect for another's rights, and plenty of societal drop outs, removing guns from the general population is like turning off the electric fence around one's chicken coop.