|
What follows is my opinion and not a request for debate of individual points made here. It is an invitation for contemplation of issues and solutions.
Why do people other than criminals own guns? For some segments of the population the answer is quite simple: some are genuine collectors preserving historical pieces, a small number actually live or work in places that make self defense a real possibility, some are target shooters who enjoy honing the physical and mental skills necessary to make holes very close together in targets far away, and of course there are the hunters.
For the rest, that part of the population not easily pigeonholed, the reasons vary. Children are fascinated by the “magic” of firearms; something done here causes something to happen over there. For some this carries over into adulthood because of the feeling of power that magic implies. Others enjoy a finely tuned piece of machinery and some, let’s face it, just enjoy the noise and mayhem.
For most of these there are parallels with other things. People collect stamps or old letters to preserve history, others master chess or cabinetry as a skill and gear-heads enjoy both the power and finely tuned machinery of their cars. In any event, for those who enjoy them, guns are just fun neat things to shoot and keep.
As for the justifications, well, that’s all they are; justifications. Self defense? At 20 feet an assailant with a knife can reach you in 1.5 seconds. Reaction time of college freshmen expecting a stimulus is .2 seconds, twice that if not anticipating it. That leaves 1.1 seconds to draw, unsafe, aim and fire. The assailant will always have the advantage because they are prepared and no amount of situational awareness can offset that. Have a gun in your car for protection? What if that “will work for food” guy suddenly sticks a gun in your face through the window and carjacks you? Opening the glove box, console or reaching under the seat is pretty much out of the question so now the guy has your car and a second gun. It might be possible to defend someone else if you aren’t the target, but SELF defense is exceedingly difficult.
Overturning a tyrannical government is likely the same. Tunisia and Egypt succeeded in revolt because the army let them and they didn’t use guns. Libya isn’t doing so well even though the Rebels have equivalent weaponry (except air power) to the Loyalists but they don’t have Command and Control, a Chain of Command, or training in tactics or strategy. Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Republic of Texas didn’t end well for those “rebels” and they only had the ATF to deal with, how would they fair against the Marines?
For all the teeth gnashing about self defense, the militia and the second amendment the reason we like guns is that they’re fun, interesting and just downright enjoyable to shoot, collect and study. Only a tiny minority of sane non-criminals hurt themselves or others through clumsiness or ignorance. Besides, hard cases make bad law, so reacting to Columbine, Virginia tech and Tucson while ignoring the thousands hurt one at a time through that clumsiness and ignorance or mental illness makes no sense.
So, given all this doesn’t it make sense for those with experience and knowledge in firearms to be involved in the process of defining the issues surrounding gun violence and finding solutions to those issues?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
