Saturday, March 17, 2007

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.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

David,
I understand why you believe "guns are bad", but me thinks you miss the larger point. I am very uncomfortable when the only people in the country having guns are agents of the Local, State, or Federal militia. I neither trust nor respect the overwhelming number of elected officials we have, and I don't trust them to make decisions that will be in anyone's best interest but their own.
As for the liability for owning a gun, I would much prefer to do that than having guns confiscated (which in essence is what you are proposing). Haven't we Big Brother'd enough?

Ryan said...

Dave, I respect your opinion on gun ownership. I am also relieved that you can see the issue from both sides, because as you stated, you have been around guns before. However, you said the key word that most anti-gun people say, scared. Why are you scared of guns? There is a huge difference in respecting guns (which you stated) and being scared of them.

Another point, which is a very old argument, is that if guns were perhaps banned - the criminals would still somehow be armed. Law abiding citizens would not be. That is a scary combination.

I have not only grown up around guns, but I am one of those people that has a lot of guns. It would also be interesting to note, that I don't hunt. I don't much care for shooting live animals - people included. However, if it came right down to it, I would protect myself, my family, and my belongings to the furthest degree. Call it what you want - I call it being prepared.

In the previous comment, tom made a super point. I wish I were a better writer as there are many different takes on this issue and that is an important one.z

Life Hiker said...

I'm a gun owner (2 shotguns), a hunter of the elusive deer. and an ex-officer in a combat unit. I don't believe a gun ban would do much good, but not for the reason stated by the other two commentors.

In my view, having a gun offers little or no protection from criminals. In the first place, there is very little armed criminal violence against the average citizen. Just ask yourself, "have you ever met anyone who's been threatened with a gun"? Not me or anyone I know...

In fact, the overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths are criminal -vs- criminal (drugs and gangs), and suicides. Draconian gun laws have not reduced the number of guns possessed by criminals, and suicides can be accomplished by many other effective methods.

As far a having a gun for protection against the government, that is a joke. The government has overwhelming force available any time it wants it. You may get off a few shots before you die, but that is no victory.

A far more effective measure for preventing unnecessary deaths would be to tighten up the traffic laws. As an EMT I've been involved in, and aware of, many deaths caused by people who should not have been driving. Multiple DWI's, reckless driving citations, or speeding tickets don't keep these killers-to-be off the roads. You are far more likely to be sent to the pearly gates by an irresponsible driver than by a gun-toting criminal.

To conclude, I don't agree that banning guns would ever get them out of the hands of criminals, and I think we have better opportunities for laws that really save lives, starting with stricter traffic laws.

Anonymous said...

The arguments in favor of guns are all based on sort of a circular paranoia: "We must have guns to protect ourselves from the people with guns."

That's why gun control won't happen any time soon- too many people are too afraid, and politicians encourage and pander to fear. (The exception: if poor people ever realize, "Hey, we're getting screwed and we're armed!" politicians will give us gun control in a heartbeat.)

Patrick Moynihan favored bullet control. He said we have a 100 year supply of guns on the street, but only a two-year supply of ammunition.

I don't but into the argument that if we ban guns only bad guys will have guns. It's true organized crime will probably find a way, but the average thug on the street won't. The ban on machine guns and hand grenades seems to be holding nicely.

Anonymous said...

Dave,
Since I'm an outdoorsman, I am really struggling with your blog here. I can not imagine having someone telling me (or any of my fellow hunting friends), that I have to give up any or all of my 13 rifles or shotguns. If the sport of gun hunting didn't exist, gone would be the whole father-son experience many of us have as we grow up and later parent. Well shit, lets ban fishing poles and bows and arrows too while we're at it.

If we weren't allowed to hunt with guns, maybe you don't understand the impact to white tail deer populations (already a problem) here in Wisconsin. Years ago we upset the ecology by removing predators, now we have to use guns to control populations. It's a fact of life for many of us in rural populations.

While it may (?) make some sense in the "cities", that's a whole different conversation and it can't applied to those of us who choose to hunt. No way would I ever give up my gun(s) voluntarily.

It all boils down to good parenting, and safe gun responsibility. No matter if it's in the city or in the woods.

Hedy said...

Hey Dave. Like you, I grew up in a house with guns. My brother and I were taught to have a healthy respect for weapons. That said, I'm not a huge fan of guns. However, I'm not convinced that banning handguns will help matters all that much. As with every major challenge in our "capitalist" society, we have to examine who benefits from the status quo? Compare it to the immigration issue -- who ultimately benefits from illegal migrant workers? The companies that hire them. Who benefits from keeping handguns legal? I don't want to jump to any paranoid conclusions, but some folks really like the idea of minorities killing each other. And the ones who are doing the killing go to jail for it. A different kind of population control, eh?