firearms and boredom

What follows is an amalgamation of multiple posts in a forum I read, concerning the topic of firearm ownership.  The origination was the question found here.  The following may appear to be a little disjointed, and a little random in its flow, but that is because I am piecing together something created over multiple days.  But, it saves me the time of rewriting all of this (yes, I am lazy), and reduces the chances of me missing something I wanted to say. 

First, yes, I am a firearm owner (also an American, so this post will be written from that perspective). I own an Israeli Military Industries (probably better known by the American corporation used to import their technology, Magnum Research) “Baby Eagle” 9mm pistol. I purchased said firearm for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to:

Entertainment. There are few things quite as enjoyable as going to the range and popping off a few rounds for the fun of it. For those who will no doubt have issue with that comment, it definitely falls under the “Do not knock it until you have tried it,” category. Assuming your nation allows such things, a local range will probably have basic pistols you could rent for the day… give it a shot, so to speak. It is one of the few sport-like activities in which there is a perfectly level playing field… people of all ages, sizes, and genders can participate, and it is only a matter of your own personal skill, as opposed to the advantage garnered by any of those unavoidable attributes. At the range I visited this weekend, there were almost as many women shooting as there were men, and using equivalent calibers to boot. The same could be said of the air rifle teams I used to compete in at college.
Preparation. As Heinlein said, specialization is for the insects. A person should at least have an understanding of as many different things as he or she is capable of. In that vein, I would much rather know how to use a pistol effectively, accurately, and efficiently, and never have to use it; than one day need it, and not have a clue. Due to that mindset, I am knowledgeable in the use of my pistol, any basic rifle or shotgun, a variety of swords (limited to mostly Renaissance-era European styles, unfortunately), a bow and arrow, a crossbow, a bo, doublesticks, my own hands, feet, and head, and a variety of other tools. I can also cook an omelet and change a vehicle’s oil, but would I use any of those skills in an undue and violent manner? Of course not. The simple knowledge of such things does not lead to the application of them, much less the illegal or illicit application, just as firearms are, in no way, responsible for crime. Though some people may have issues with my omelets…
Education. As with all forms of martial training, knowing how to use, deconstruct, clean, and reconstruct a firearm teach you a great deal, both about the equipment, as well as yourself. Hand-eye coordination, forearm strength, learning your own biorhythm (except for those lucky people graced with rock-steady hands, the rest of us must know when to shoot such that our weaving movement results in the target being on-sight), endurance, spatial visualization, neatness, cleanliness, responsibility, maturity, and a variety of other things can all be learned from the use of firearms… Especially cleanliness. It is far from being the least-messy job, but without cleaning a firearm regularly (ideally after every time you shoot it, if not more often), it will eventually stop working. And sometimes, stop working dramatically.

As I said, these are not all of the reasons I purchased the pistol… however, there are also a few reasons that were not included in my decision. Primarily, the concept of “self-defense”. While, for some people, this is a perfectly rational and logical reason to purchase a pistol, I have no illusions concerning my own reaction time and accuracy. I would be more likely to shoot myself in the foot than hit the guy attacking me. Additionally, for safety concerns, I keep the pistol cleared, unloaded, racked back, and locked in a safe with its ammunition stored elsewhere. That is not exactly a tenable self-defense position.

However, just because that rationale did not enter into my decision-making chain, it does not eliminate it from the realm of possibility for other people. Some people are fast enough… skilled enough… trained enough to be able to effectively use their pistols in self-defense. In fact, there have been far more instances of concealed-carriers defending police officers than instances of the same people misusing their firearms, as mentioned in the source cited by Tabihs. Of course, there will be situations wherein having the firearm on your body will serve you no good at all… if you are caught off guard, if you are horribly outnumbered, etc. However, a majority of those individuals who decide to carry firearms also seem to share a common bond with everyone else, often coming to other people’s aid in times of need. In those situations, the individuals are more than capable of drawing their firearm, judging the situation, and reacting accordingly. And, honestly, if I were being mugged at gunpoint, I would rather someone help me out with a firearm of their own, than a piddling can of mace. But I guess that is just me. More on this topic later.

Also, as mentioned before, firearms are the great equalizer… a .45 calibre hollowpoint bullet will permanently bring down someone hopped up on PCP… a taser will not. I would rather lose a moron on drugs than a squad car full of cops. Of course, the fact that we do not adequately equip our police officers with weapons of sufficient calibre has always been a source of amazement for me, but I guess that is what I get for living in this society.

From the previous paragraphs, you can probably tell where my vote lies. Firearms are tools, just like knives, automobiles, hammers, computers, and everything else. Any of a number of tools can be used to kill people, sometimes much more quickly, much more messily, much more painfully, and much more efficiently than a firearm, so there is no point getting your panties in a wad over just this one. And, in the end, the problem is not the tool, but the user. Taking away a useful tool from everyone just because a small minority cannot figure out how to properly operate within society is just plain idiotic. May as well take cars away from everyone just because some people speed.

That said, I see no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, nor any weapon capable of projecting an explosive warhead. That goes a fair pace beyond even the limits of self-defense. But rifles, shotguns, pistols, carbines, derringers, and whatever else you can manufacture in semi-automatic, single-action, or whatever else modes? Have at it. Variety is the spice of life.

Additionally, since I believe the shortcoming of the system to be the user, and not the inanimate, non-sentient tool, punishments for the illegal use of firearms should be remarkably stiff – as in death. Yup, you heard me right. Anyone convicted of using a firearm during an illegal action (such as robbery, mugging, rape, arson, etc., but not including defense of self, family, or others) should be allowed a certain amount of time for appeals and to put his affairs in order, and then off with his head. Literally. While a firearm is just a tool, the improper use of such a powerful tool should be met with swift and decisive punishments. This both deters morons from acting improperly, and allows law-abiding individuals (who make up the majority of firearm owners) the chance to exercise their rights, as well as demonstrate their own intelligence. Of course, I also believe that a single DUI/DWI/etc. should result in a person losing his or her driving license for the rest of his or her life, and if a person happened to kill another person while driving his or her vehicle while intoxicated… well… you guess the rest of that thought.

And that pretty much sums up my views. In the end, no, owning a firearm is not an inherent right. But life is. And sometimes, the use of undeniable force is necessary for the continuation of a person’s life. When used, stored, and handled properly, a firearm is nothing more than an inert piece of metal. It is when people are irresponsible, destructive, or just plain stupid with the weapons that something bad happens, and that is absolutely no fault of the firearm. I patently refuse to be held accountable, hamstrung, or limited by another person’s stupidity… sorry. In the end, that is what the anti-gun-ownership advocates support… holding other people accountable for the actions of a select few… How stupid is that?

A random point: Heinlein may have been a misogynistic, womanizing, borderline-nutcase, he was correct about a few things. One such thing is probably that a well-armed society is a polite society – when you are held immediately, and undeniably, accountable for your own actions and words (including offhandedly shooting someone), you tend to be a little more careful with them. That, and Darwin steps in and waves his hands… Granted, the society he proposed in Beyond This Horizon would never fly anywhere on this world (somewhat unfortunate, but that is the way of things), but the story is worth a look-see, so long as you do not mind your own beliefs being assaulted.

Another random point: While V for Vendetta may just be a movie, it also raises its own valid point concerning firearm ownership – a people should never have to fear their government, but instead a government should always have to fear its people. The Founding Fathers have created a nation that exists solely at the mercy of its constituents… Granted, the United States is a republic, but a republic in which the citizens have the final say – if the government is not behaving as we see fit, we have the ability… in fact, we are obligated to change that government. For the “modern” citizen, this amounts to his voting duty, which is so pathetically ignored by most people. But the Fathers also acknowledged the possibility and necessity for the use of force against a misbehaving government… And, in the end, firearms are the only things, as of this moment, which would allow citizens to resist/forcibly change their government.

And the last random point, we have historian J. A. Pocock’s description of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S: “The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being…”

However, there may be supposed problems with my believe structure concerning the application of sufficient punishments to not only adequately fit the crime, but also deter the existance of crime whatsoever.  This tends to be a reactive approach, as opposed to a proactive one…  However, approaching crime from the "before" side of the coin, frankly, scares the flying carp out of me. Now, if you are talking about examining the society around us and trying to figure out what it is that motivates people to commit these crimes, ok. But if you are talking about attempting to limit the choices and will of the citizens around us… *twitches* Not so sure.

I will be the first to admit that murders (and all other crimes) are horrible things, but the last thing I want to see if a Minority Report / 1984 / Equilibrium / etc. society spring up in reaction to increased crime rates.

I guess I believe in the sanctity of human choice… We all have, within us, the capabilities to do great things, on either end of the spectrum. Which end we choose, however, should be a matter of personal decision, not something that is forced upon you.

That said, I also believe in the sanctity of Newton’s Third Law, in that, yes, you can decide to use a firearm while attempting to rob a convenience store, and then shoot someone in the process, for whatever reason. However, through that concious, personal, and active choice chain of (1) deciding to rob the store, (2) deciding to bring the firearm along (along with the resulting decision chain of purchasing the gun to begin with and shouldering that responsibility), (3) using the firearm to "support" your case, and (4) shooting the other person, you have clearly demonstrated your inability to function within society’s bounds. That decision should carry with it a resulting consequence that should clearly demonstrate, once and for all, how little society needs you around. Needless to say, I do not believe our current judicial system makes that repercussion painfully and readily obvious. There is something to be said for public executions (and before someone goes on a cute little tirade, I am talking about executions completed after sufficient judicial and appelate review has taken place, not the kangaroo-court executions that have destroyed the image of making the things public).

In the same vein, I believe that those who follow the rules, laws, and codes of society should be allowed the freedom to do as they please, so long as it does not detrimentally affect someone else. However, should their decisions (such as drinking far too much and then attempting to drive home, only to kill everyone else in the other car in the process) result in such an "unfortunate event" (to use bleeding-heart terminology), then the repercussion should be sufficiently clear, obvious, and sufficient so as to discourage anyone else from making a similar choice again. They are still free to make the choice, do not get me wrong… but they, too, will suffer the consequences.

I view firearm ownership as simply a facet of that view of personal responsibility I so poorly explained above… Just because some people cannot figure out how to operate properly within the bounds of society, it is no reason to punish everyone. That is completely and unquestionably idiotic. However, I do believe that some features of firearm ownership should be changed… As with other tools that are capable of killing many, many people (like, you know, automobiles), an education and licensing program should be instituted across the nation. The license should not keep track of what firearms you own, nor anything of that nature, but function exactly like a driver’s license – show that you have been educated in the appropriate handling and use of class "XXXX" firearm (and you could even break it down among revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt-action rifles, muzzle-loaders, etc.). Once licensed, you would be free to purchase as many of that type of firearm as your bank will let you.

Said education should be remarkably in-depth, and demonstrate the problems that can arise from the improper storage, handling, and firing of a firearm, in order to attempt to completely demystify and deglorify said weapons. Additional training should be required for anyone having a firearm in a house with children under the age of XX (whatever the minimum age of ownership is decided upon the class of weapon he is licensed in).

Once a person has been licensed, and later down the line messes up, the judge can simply look at him or her and say, "You were educated in how to use this, you passed the test, you accepted the responsibility of ownership, and yet you still chose to misuse it? Yeah. You be screwed." The resulting punishments should be appropriately steep (and you already know what I mean by ’steep’). And for those people who use a firearm without being licensed appropriately? Well that (barring unusually extreme circumstances) is suddenly a very cut-and-dried case.

I fully realize this will probably never happen, but I can hope.

Finally, as for why someone would use a firearm to commit a crime, and why the American society seems so plagued by it, I could not venture to say. I would guess that a fair amount of it rests upon the shoulders of the parents not parenting (Even though mine did not keep firearms in the house, I was taught, at a very, very early age, their dangers, and how to handle them appropriately. Add to that parents not teaching their children the difference between movies/video games and reality, and other such useful societal topics, and you are bound to get a mess.), and people simply not taking responsibility for their actions (the new, "it’s not his fault!" attitude). I think you might have something with the frontier- and colonial-era attitudes… this nation was founded by go-getters: belligerant, active, up-front-and-honest, hands-on, red-blooded men, there is no doubt about that. And it has been later augmented throughout the years by people looking to come here to carve out their own corner of the world, indicating their own degree of aggressive tendencies. Genes may or may not play into that, but the products of their efforts certainly last throughout the ages. I guess the difference is that we used to idolize men like John Wayne for the man he was, not the gun he carried. Needless to say, times have changed.