Guns Again

I recently wrote a post about the Second Amendment and said that it did not allow people an unfettered right to have guns. At the end, I said that I’d do a post about why, regardless of what Law says, we should not let people have guns.

This is it.

First, some disclosure about my bias.

I grew up in a house with guns in it. All of them were long-guns. My father was a World War II vet. He had a rifle and a shotgun. When I turned about twelve he bought me a JC Higgins (Sears) .22 caliber rifle. All three of those guns are now in the custody of my youngest brother. As the eldest child, when my father died, the deal was, they were mine. In case my kid brother cares, I, hereby publicly, cede ownership to him.

When I was seven or eight, my father said “come over here David.” He had the rifle out and started to tell me about it before he taught me to clean it.

“Guns are made to kill. You only pick one up if you intend to kill something. All guns are loaded. I don’t care if you know it’s not loaded, it’s loaded. If you pick up a gun, until you are ready to shoot something, you never point it at anything. You point it down or up. Your finger is never on the trigger, until you are going to shoot something.”

I paid too much attention probably. Guns scare me. Literally. I think I have too much respect for what they are and can do to “things.”

All of the men in my family have guns. Most of my friends have guns. They collect them and shoot them on a regular basis. They talk about them, while I stare off into the middle distance.

Irony: I am a very good shot. Rifles, shotguns, handguns. Some years ago I went target shooting with a friend that was a state trooper. He lost, I won, the accuracy contest.

But, there is a difference, a big difference, between picking up a gun in a controlled environment, not pointing it at anything, until you decide to “kill” the target and pulling a gun deciding to kill someONE in a chaotic environment. My bet is that the best of us shots in the controlled environment will be utter failures in the chaotic environment, shooting the furniture, if we are lucky, and if not, someone that is innocent.

So there’s the bias.

As it stands, people die because people ­(not the military, the National Guard, police) have guns. If we take away guns from people, people will still die; but, I think less than die now, and over time, I think a lot less.

If we ban guns, in the short term, law-abiding people will turn in their guns (probably not all will, certainly not some of my friends). But, some kids won’t find the guns in the closet (tell me you never explored what was in those nooks and crannies when your parents weren’t around) and off themselves. A Columbine-type kid won’t have access to the weapon that kills the kids in his class because his law-abiding parents got rid of it. The dysfunctional family, otherwise law-abiding and having turned in their guns, won’t have them when events escalate. They’ll be left with fists and an odd knife or two. A bruise, a scar and a divorce. They and I can live with that.

“If we take away the our right to have guns, only the criminals will have guns.” Absolutely right – for a while. Over time, those criminals will have less and less access to guns. Think Britain and Japan. They have their problems, but firearm deaths are not high on the list.

If fewer normal people don’t have guns, fewer normal people will die. Short term and long term.

I haven’t asked a friend, a police officer in Atlanta, if he would prefer that citizens didn’t have guns. He’s one of my friends that collects them. Maybe he disagrees; but, I have a feeling that if you polled all of the police, using a secret ballot, you would find that they would rather not have to face their day knowing they may come across people with guns. They all would have the same stories of little old ladies that defended themselves with their late husband’s rusting Colt 45; but, they would have to, if pressed, tell you about their tears when they responded to the dead three year old that was just playing with something that was laying around the house.

OK. You don’t like my legislative agenda. How about this? Absolute liability.

You have the right to keep and bear a dangerous instrumentality. Let’s pass a law that says you will bear the economic consequences of that right. Starting with Colt and Glock. Ending with you the buyer. Oh, that bad guy burglar, he stole it and shot someone! Remember your slogan, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” He, a people, couldn’t have done it unless Colt manufactured it and you bought it. So why shouldn’t you, you’re a people, and Colt, a fictitious people (oh yeah, and its shareholders) get to pay the pain and suffering, reasonable value of the lost life, consortium, etc. of the little old lady or the three year old and their families? Sure, we’ll ding the bad guy shooter; but, what assets do you think he has? You and Colt, the enablers in this deal, jointly and severally liable, will just have to pick up the slack. What’s unfair about that?

OK. You don’t want to take the hit. Let’s take you out of the equation. Only Colt and Glock have to pay. How long do you think they will make guns, if they have to pay for every life that is taken by illegal use of one of their products? Let’s say they hang in there, NRA life members that their executives are. What price will they charge to pay for the economic consequences of their beliefs? Can you afford the real economic and social cost of your belief in the Second Amendment, as you interpret it? Gun manufacturers and owners are harming the rest of us, and getting a free ride. I think they should put up or shut up.