Guns

Had a little chat with Sallie about the whole blog thing.  Passionate, she says, post about things you feel passion about.  Or things that are currently in discussion in the press, etc.  Guns, she suggests.

Take a deep breath.  Guns.

Okay.

A gun is just a tool.  All it does it make holes in stuff at a great distance.  That's it.  That's all any gun does, no matter what caliber, design, shape, color, configuration, action, etc, etc.

You have to start any conversation about guns with that simple fact.  They don't spontaneously explode and slaughter innocent children.  They don't cause crime.  They don't create serial killers.  That's just not how it works.

The founders of the country, the guys who created the philosophy behind this place I live, understood this.  They decided that any government that takes guns away from its citizens was wrong to do so.  I happen to agree, and here's why.  No one but me should have the authority to decide how and with what tools I decide to protect my life, family, neighbors, possessions, and livelihood.  I'm sorry, but that's just not your decision.  It's mine, and mine alone.  This is what the framers of the country had in mind. 

Do I need a gun?  Nope.  In 47 years of wandering the planet, there's been only a few times I felt like I should really have a firearm.  Military stuff and hiking in grizzly territory.  That's it.  Not time in Detroit or Guatemala City or Almaty.  I've never even been in a fist fight.  But the question of "needing" a gun is irrelevant for a lot of reasons.  It's not a Bill Of Needs, it's a Bill Of Rights, and anyone who's a citizen has that right, the right to make his own decision about whether to supply himself with deadly equipment.

Herewith, a list of the common arguments against individual gun ownership, and my responses.  Please read this with the understanding that I'm sort of reluctantly in support of what's called "gun rights."  There are a lot of nutty people out there who have some sort of unholy love for guns and think that owning and shooting them are related in some way to religious ecstasy.  I am not among them.  I like going to the range and shooting holes in pictures of zombies, and I really enjoy shooting trap up at the local gun club.  I also, however, happen to try really hard to use logic in my political positions, and that's what, God help you, is coming next.

Assault weapons:  God dammit, there's no such thing.  Stop believing and perpetrating this utter crap.  What's called an assault weapon is a rifle with a pistol grip.  It's horseshit.  I own a rifle and a shotgun.  Both are far, far more powerful than my issue M4 from when I was in the military.  My M4  fired one .223 round per pull of the trigger, or 3 if it was set on "burst."  .223 is a ridiculously under-powered round.  It's high velocity, but one of the common complaints is that it zips through a body and the person shot doesn't realize they've been shot.  Both my rifle and my shotgun will destroy a human life with a single trigger pull.  Are they assault weapons?  No.  The notion that there are firearms in the world that are "designed for killing people" is a red herring.  All firearms are "designed for killing" something.  That's why they exist.  Stop trying to separate them out.  It's ridiculous.  No one ever talks about banning the 12-gauge shotgun, and that's the most devastatingly lethal interpersonal weapon yet developed.  A single blast from a 12-ga is equivalent to a burst from a nine-millimeter submachine gun like an Uzi. 

Magazine size:  It takes less than a second to change magazines.  This is also utter nonsense.  Maybe, if you haven't practiced or you fumble, it might take two seconds.  The only thing a mag size law effects is how often you have to reload at the range.

Background checks:  Yes!  Check the background of everyone.  Check the background of all citizens.  Make sure that everyone who has a violent notion is locked up.  Is this somehow related to firearms?  Nope.  Just take everybody who decides that violent action against another person is a good idea and kill them.  Or, maybe, we live in a reasonable society where we can let people defend themselves and hey, here's an idea, improve mental health treatment, because when someone decides to perform a violent act, we often have some warning.  And in those times when the warning doesn't exist, I'm pretty happy to know that people like me are ready to respond in such a way as to end the threat.

Which leads me to a significant point.  I want people like me to be armed.  I'm basically a pacifist.  I really don't want, ever, to be in a violent conflict.  I also don't want to practice my emergency medicine skills.  However, I have significant training in both.  I'm a former infantry soldier and trained at the paramedic level.  I want to be able to manage whatever emergency arises.  Had I been present at the Boston bombings, I might have helped.  Had I been present in that theater in Aurora, I hope I might have caught the shooter and killed him before he went on to end a lot of lives and create a lot of human tragedy.  Maybe I would have been able to grapple with him, but it seems like it would have worked better to just shoot him.

Okay, readers.  Let me have it.




Just saw on Facebook a macro someone made about how gun ownership should be treated like car ownership.  Well, no, it shouldn't.  First, when you drive, you are making use of public property, and actively endangering everyone else on or near the road.  The simple act of owning a gun does not have that effect.  There are guns in my closet and a car in my driveway right now.  In a few minutes I'm going to drive to the post office.  In doing so, I both run the risk of killing someone and make use of government owned and operated property.  If I decide to carry a gun in the process--here's the thing, pay attention now--I will NOT be endangering anyone.  Carrying a holstered gun is closer to having a car in the garage.  The equivalent of driving would be actually shooting the weapon, which I do on private property, at the range, or at a public range, where I follow the posted rules.

But more importantly, it's none of your goddam business if I own or choose to carry a gun.  How and with what tools I decide to keep myself safe from whatever admittedly unlikely and random danger are my business alone.  If you feel like you need to have a say in that, well, we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and what it means to be a member of a society.  I'm perfectly fine with the idea of murder being illegal.  I'm even comfortable with the fact that should I use a gun to defend myself or others, I will very likely be arrested and investigated.  That's a good thing.  In the unlikely and terribly tragic event that I have to destroy another human being, I fully expect an inquiry.  I think that's a positive thing.  While it's unfortunate that our court system is such that it will cost an extraordinary amount of money and time, I live with that reality.  But I think that cases like the Martin/Zimmerman event should be placed under a microscope, so we as a society can figure out how to keep 17 year olds from getting shot.  But the answer does not lie in regulating the tools.  It lies in educating both parties.