Monday, December 31, 2012

On Guns


I did not grow up within a strong “gun culture” – my experiences with guns were few and far between. Having been a Navy Reservist now for nine years, I am qualified (according to Navy standards) to handle the 9mm pistol, and I have been associating with people who did grow up within a strong “gun culture.” I have found the large majority of them to be what I would consider “good people” – kind, considerate, respectful.

Our highly safety-conscious military has extremely strict rules as to who will carry firearms and when, and how and where those firearms will be stowed when not in use. Literally every weapon, magazine, and bullet is accounted for. The first thing you see when you go to the armory to clean your weapon is a sign in big, red letters: USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS AUTHORIZED. They are not messing around in the armory – if they see you doing something irresponsible and potentially hazardous with your weapon, they will take you down (as a last resort). Safety first.

It occurs to me that if our military has such strong weapons regulations and accountability for our own soldiers and sailors, and given that generally everyone in the military recognizes these regulations as a matter of common sense and safety, then why shouldn’t we expect such regulation on the largely untrained civilian population? Are safety and accountability necessarily in conflict with rights and liberty?

Guns are very dangerous. They are lethal. I would think that a thoughtful, freedom-loving population would see it as being in everyone’s best interest to bring a few more responsibilities to bear on any civilian’s right to own a gun. I think we’re all okay with the concept of “rights and responsibilities.” It just makes sense.

I need to call on my military and “gun culture” friends to fall back on their training. We know “Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.” Well, we have a situation here. Something’s changed in our society, and there will be time to figure it out eventually. Right now, we need to come together as trained professionals who, as human beings, love our fellow human beings more than political rhetoric. Our children, our civilian population – they need us to toss out, not the Constitution, but the political rhetoric that seems to shut down communication, the sharing of ideas.

We need to Improvise some new rhetoric that keeps channels of communication open, moving beyond “from my cold, dead hands!” I don’t even know what the new rhetoric will be – that’s why they call it improv.

We need to Adapt – we don’t know with certainty what’s caused the change in society that is wreaking this havoc on us, but we know change has occurred, so we must adapt to that change now and not wait until we “figure it out.” We have a situation. Children are being slaughtered, and have been for too long in our schools, malls, neighborhoods, streets, and homes.

We need to Overcome. No more of this. No more.

I believe the regulation and accountability we accept as trained professionals in weapons handling is based on common sense and common safety, and we would be irresponsible to not insist upon it for our untrained civilian population. It’s the same irresponsibility as allowing untrained, unlicensed electricians to wire our homes. As with anything useful but potentially lethal, we need guidelines, standards, and accountability to reduce risk as much as possible. In the case of guns, we’re talking about regulation, strict accountability, and, above all, access.

These changes do not necessarily have to mean a threat to liberty. Isn’t a loaded gun in the hands of an unstable, violent person the ultimate form of tyranny? If it’s tyranny you’re itching to overthrow, we can start right here, right now.

2 comments:

  1. When you infringe on the rights of the "good guys and gals" (law abiding, responsible people) to get a firearm, you curb their freedom to protect their lives. You infringe on their ability to protect themselves from the "bad guys and gals". Think safety. Even more important, think 2nd amendment. There is wisdom in what the Founders so brilliantly crafted as our nation's foundation. Defend your Constitution before it's to weak to defend you.

    Furthermore, if someone were to break into my home brandishing a gun as I type this comment, I would prefer to have a firearm in the house to "shoot to avert" him killing me and my family.

    As my 80+ year old Mother said to me over Christmas, as she lives with her 80+ year old sister, miles away from a police station: "If someone were to come into my house to steal or kill me, I want to have a gun so I can shoot him first!"

    The situations in CT, CO and VA were the result of mental health problems. That is where we need to start in finding solutions to reducing murders by guns.

    There are other more targeted solutions: training education.

    Gun control does not decrease crime and killings.

    Chicago has the strictest gun restrictions in the nation and yet the highest killings. The "bad guys" will get the guns regardless of the laws. They don't obey them anyway!

    Watch this video and see why "guns save lives." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment! I basically agree with what you're saying. Teaching people how to drive a car before letting them use one any time they want is not the same as infringing on their right to freely travel. It's common sense safety. Before moving anything that weighs a ton or two at 70 mph, you better know what you're doing, right?

    My post isn't about infringing rights. It's about coming up with ways to make sure that those who choose to arm themselves know what they're doing, and to keep guns away from the uneducated, untrained, and/or mentally unstable. Is keeping the car keys from a drunk friend about the infringement of rights, or about keeping that friend and others safe on the roads so they can live to drive another day? To me, that's what gun control or regulation is about. Common sense safety.

    ReplyDelete