tunnel vision and toddlers

Robb pointed out another instance of general-purpose hysteria concerning firearms, and the blockquote below is what I intended on leaving as my comment on the post in question, as drafted up during my lunch break:

To start off, I guess I should share a few disclaimers. First, I am not female, I am not a parent, and I am not a regular reader of this weblog. By the rationale of some commenters here, I should keep my trap shut and keep moving. However, the administrator/writer at this weblog has chosen to allow comments on this particular post, and I see no reason why I should not leave mine – the only people who fear open discussion are those whose beliefs are too weak to survive.

Second, I grew up (and was homeschooled, for a time) in a family that effectively did not have firearms. Sure, my father had a monstrous black powder beast, and a .22 rifle, both trigger-locked and stashed under their bed, but I do not recall any ammunition ever being stored in the house, nor do I remember the firearms being used. Before I was born, both of my parents were what I would describe to be “avid” shooters, but moving to California and dealing with their onerous firearm laws convinced them to give up that hobby. In addition to not having firearms in the house, my mother would not permit me to have firearm-resembling toys, whether they were GI Joe figurines and their accessories, or full-size mock-up replicas. I was not permitted to see any movie rated for above my age, and my television viewership was effectively limited to ST:tNG and a few other options.

Third, I served in the military for four years, and while us officers rarely got to interact with firearms, I carried one, on average, every six days as I helped protect the two ships I was stationed on.

Fourth, at current count, I own two operational rifles, one rifle lower (which is legally a firearm, but is about 25 pieces away from actually, you know, working), one shotgun, and two pistols. The shotgun and one rifle are in condition 3, and one of the pistols is in condition 1 when it is on my hip. Yes, I am legally licensed to carry a firearm, and do so wherever and whenever I am legally permitted to do so (which, here in Tennessee, is a lot of places).

Fifth and finally, I strongly and adamantly believe in an individual’s natural right to self-preservation and self-defense.

Now that I have bored away most people with shorter attention spans, I will get to the heart of the matter. GGC asks “Oh my God, am I sheltering him?” The simple, honest, and straightforward answer is, “Yes.” Violence exists in our world, whether it is violence perpetrated with a firearm, with knives, or with bare fists and feet. There are good and bad people in the world, and the bad people would very much like to cause harm to the good people, especially if they can extract some form of gain out of it. And whether you teach Archer those simple facts yourself, or whether the world teaches them to him, he is going to learn them. Of course, you are supposed to shelter him… for a time. Just like the “birds and the bees” question, the question of violence will eventually need to be answered, and if you do not do it, the world will.

GGC goes on to say, “Using gun as defense seldom works to defend.” Fortunately, that simply is not true – I can point out over 4000 instances of successful defensive gun uses, and those are just the ones reported by the media. Many times, simply displaying a firearm is sufficient to discourage a would-be criminal, and incidents like that never make the news, if they are even reported to the police departments.

Moving on, GGC says, “What are you afraid of?” Honestly, that question is more accurately directed at yourself. What are you afraid of, GGC? An inanimate lump of metal that is incapable of action on its own? A tool that is actually less dangerous than the four-wheeled conveyance sitting out in your driveway? Or the people who actually wield that tool? And has the thought ever crossed your mind that I do not own/carry firearms out of a sense of fear? That you openly admit to your own fear of firearms is all well and good, and I laud you for being so forthright about it… but using that admission as a basis for projecting your fears onto other people is fallacious to the extreme.

Additionally, GGC states, “Guns are far more likely to kill innocent people than criminals when kept inside the home. Period.” I am sorry, but the Kellerman study to which you allude has been disproven every way possible. Simply put, your assertion is not only unproven, it is arguably false.

Continuing on to the comments, one in particular made me giggle, more than a little: “Blogging creates community, and by barreling in with cold statistics and colder attitudes, you are not going to have any kind of positive effect on the readers of this blog.” I am sorry, but the only thing that matters in this kind of discussion is the statistics, the numbers, and the reality of the situation. To put it very honestly and very bluntly, Erin, it does not matter how you feel. It does not matter what you fear. It does not matter what your emotions on the situation are. The fact is, we have a naturally-granted and Constitutionally-protected right to self-defense, and a right to ensuring that defense through the use of modern tools. Neither you, nor anyone else, has a right to “feel” safe. Guess which one wins between a “right” and a “not-right”? Furthermore, I notice you never disputed those statistics that were brought up, nor did you attempte to refute them, but rather you stuck your fingers in your ears and started going, “Lalalalala!” Why is that, exactly?

However, I am going to bounce back up to GGC’s comment that has been echoed by sympathetic voices throughout the comment thread, “Do I believe in the right to bear arms? Yes. But I believe there should be stricter regulations.” If that quote is an honest asessment of your beliefs, GGC, then you do not believe in the right to bear arms. I assume that you are aware that there are already over 300 major state and federal laws concerning firearms? I also assume that you understand that felon possession of firearms, use of firearms in the execution of crimes, killing people with firearms, assaulting people with firearms, threatening people with firearms, injuring people with firearms, and countless other inappropriate uses of firearms are already illegal? I finally assume that you understand that criminals do not obey laws?

Then what regulations, exactly, do you think will be necessary to satiate whatever fear you have conerning firearms? Many of your commenters recommend gun registration schemes – how, exactly, do you propose forcing criminals to register guns? Furthermore, history has more than proven that registration inevitably leads to confiscation, so how do you propose getting gun-owners who know better onboard with the concept? Some sophonts have used the argument that if we have nothing to hide, why should we fear closer scrutiny – in that case, why do you not allow the government to set up cameras observing your houses? After all, if you have nothing to fear, what do you have to hide, and those cameras might alert the police that you need help. Historically, the Jews had “nothing to fear” when their benign government asked them to register and make themselves known with their golden stars… need we reiterate how that ended? Again, the situation boils down to rights – neither you, nor the government, has the right to register my rights. Period.

Another commenter mentioned waiting periods. Not only do waiting periods not accomplish anything, but also waiting periods can kill. Remember, the “If it can save one life” saw cuts both ways, and an inconvenience to the law-abiding that accomplishes nothing is simply not tolerable.

A third commenter references nebulous “regulations”, like classes and training and whatnot. So long as those educational opportunities are optional, and have no bearing on an individual’s ability to purchase and own a firearm (if he or she is legally eligible), then I would have absolutely no problems with them. However, how would you like it if I suggested mandatory “regulations” concerning your ability to write at your own weblog, or comment at another? After all, both are protected rights under the Constitution – how is one any different from the other?

When we get right down to it, GGC, you may be willing to allow your fear to run your life, as it is right now (which is a supreme irony, given the nature of your post). However, I refuse to allow your fear to run my life, nor do I see any rational, reasonable, or logical reason for it to do so. If you do not want to keep firearms in your house, more power to you, and I wish you the best of luck relying on the better nature of criminals and a police force that has no responsibility to protect you. Me, I will take a more direct and active approach to protecting myself, my wife, and whatever children I may have in the future.

Oh, and for those individuals who would have others believe that I own firearms as a form of penile compensation, you are absolutely correct – I am, indeed, compensating for the fact that my penis cannot throw 100 grain pieces of metal at 1000 feet per second. If it could, I might actually pass on the whole firearms thing… But probably not – target shooting is just too much fun.

Unfortunately, between my lunch break and my getting home, the author of the post saw fit to engage in some Reasoned Discourse of her own, and closed down comments. Do I think that some of the comments, on both sides of the fence, were a little over the top? Yup. Do I agree with shutting down comments? Well, like I said in the not-quite-comment – the only people who fear the free and open expression, exchange, and debate of ideas are those whose own ideas cannot survive the experience. It is her webpage, and she is more than welcome to do whatever with it she so desires, but I certainly do not have to agree with those actions, nor do I have to support them, nor do I have to say they were good ones.
At any rate, as with all Reasoned Discourse, the author did not squelch the debate, the debate was simply taken elsewhere. For someone advocating the expression of everyone’s points of view to the bitter end, I wonder if she can recognize the hypocrisy and cowardice of her actions…
Oh well. The moral of the story is this: You may not want your opinion to be changed, and you may be running a webpage “just for you”, but if you are going to post something/anything online, you would be a bloody fool not to expect it to be discussed. The discussion may not go places you like, and it may challenge your world views, but shutting it down at your corner of the ‘verse not only demonstrates your narrow-mindedness, but it also guarantees that it will be discussed elsewhere… and probably not in a good light. Such are the vagaries of the Internet – better get used to them.