Ramblings of a Responsible Gun Owner

Ramblings of a Responsible Gun Owner
(rebuttal to "Enough Already: Mandate Responsible Gun Ownership Now!")

05-26-2002

I just came across this article. Opinion, that is. I read it because I was hoping to read about the reasonable middle ground mentioned in the teaser. First let me give you my first impression. Gun owners (and the NRA) are portrayed as maniacs; gun control advocates are portrayed as well intentioned, but ignoring realities resulting from "NRA pushing irresponsible gun ownership for decades". Somehow, I don't see this as a middle ground argument. And the solution is no solution at all.

None of what is suggested will lower irresponsible use of handguns. None will keep criminals from obtaining illegal guns (that's why they are criminals). Let me put my two cents worth on each of the suggested courses of action.

"Take and pass a government approved safety class on each weapon purchased" - How does this reduce the number of accidents, and the number of guns stolen? Is there anyone out there seriously thinking it is a good idea to clean a loaded gun? To point a gun at something (or someone), and pull the trigger without checking to see if it is loaded? Let's be honest; it's not called an accidental shooting for nothing. Much like car crashes, accidents are going to happen. Often, because people have their judgment impaired, or because the forget to think of the consequences, or because they are plain stupid. No matter how much training you offer, there is going to be a certain percentage of people who fail miserably in the thinking department. Having said this, this is the least objectionable of the three suggestions. The thing is that going to a class to learn to 1) treat all guns as if they were loaded, and 2) never point a weapon at anyone seems . . . well, a bit much.

"Pass a proficiency test with each weapon every five years." It's interesting the article mentions police officers. I go to a range where police officers sometimes practice for their qualifying shooting. I am no marksman, and not a regular or avid shooter. But I am appalled at some of the shooting I see. And this is in a relaxed environment, with a stationary target that is not shooting back. Certainly does not make me feel safe with regards to accidental shooting. I have taken people from work to the range who have no experience with guns, and they do as well or better. Basically, I guess I would want to know what the required proficiency level would be. If we take the automotive example, we regularly put people behind the wheel who have little mastery of the complex weapon system known as the family car. If we use the basic driving test as a comparison, the requirements would be very low indeed. However, unlike a car, a gun is not something people use every day. It is a singularly simple mechanical device. Pull the trigger, it fires a projectile. The training then would amount to: don't pull the trigger at the wrong time. Hell, most gun owners rarely shoot more than one a month. What kind of training would we require of them. Better yet, why are we not requiring the same kind of training for drivers (current statistics are something like 50,000 deaths per year, with something like half having alcohol involved - - no amount of training helps if you are under the influence).

"Register handguns each year" OK, that sounds like a great idea. But wait, it is the stated agenda of the gun control crowd to initially limit guns, and eventually remove them. But wait, even more. The states I am familiar with (and I admit it's not all 50), already require a registration form (with the corresponding background check) to purchase a gun. That goes for private sales as well (it is illegal for me to sell a gun to anyone who does not have a permit to purchase - -if I am willing to break the law in the first place, then another law does not matter). But as I said, I don't see a big problem with registration .. . it's already being done. The problem is federal registration. States already register guns. How does a federal registration help?

"Undergo a complete background check before every gun purchase, with subsequent rechecks every five years" hmm . . . I thought that was the whole point of the Brady Bill. I don't know of anyone that can buy a gun without a background check (again, I'm not familiar with all the states, but it is a Federal law . . . ). And including a "nut" check? What the heck does that mean? Personally, I believe that anyone who holds a religious belief, and who reads horoscopes, is mentally unbalanced and delusional. I can even point to historic records (and recent news) showing grievous harm perpetrated by deeply religious individuals. Heck, never mind guns, they should not be driving, and they should be refrained from handling sharp objects.

So where are we. I agree something has to be done . . . actually, the same could be said for cars, booze, and drugs - - cumulatively responsible for many more deaths than handguns. Maybe what I should say is: I agree that the perception is, that something must be done. The article mentions it is the government's responsibility to "decide what cars are safe for the road, what strength pain reliever I can get without a prescription and how fire-resistant the inside of passenger planes must be." Well, I agree. They should certainly ensure guns have safeties, and don't blow up when fired. But the next statement is curious: "The government must exercise its authority and demand the safe, responsible possession of handguns." ???? Aren't they already? There are many, many laws prohibiting unsafe, and unlawful use of handguns. Just like there are laws demanding the safe, responsible use of the cars we drive. And if you break them , you should be punished. Severely. The problem is that the federal government rarely prosecute criminals under federal guns laws (which carry mandatory sentences), unless they are high profile cases. If Joe Criminal shoots and kills Fred "regular guy" Grocer, he will be prosecuted under the laws of the state, but the federal government will pass on pressing federal charges. What is the use of federal laws if they are selectively enforced. Why should we have additional laws if the ones we have are not enforced?

And finally, do I have a suggestion? Education, education, education, and tough enforcement. Contrary to what the article says, the Constitution does not grant the right to own a gun. It restricts thegovernment's ability to limit that right. Like all the other rights, there are consequences and responsibilities associated with having those rights. It is the government's job to protect the public, not by limiting people's rights, but by severely punishing those who abuse those rights.

And finally, one thing that I did not comment on, is the statement: "Really? Are generals in the Pentagon--with their hands on the nuclear button-- worried about you and your Tech 9? Don't flatter yourself. The Soviet Union fell as a result of popular dissent by an unarmed populace. All the militiamen hiding in the hills, waiting to blow big brother away when he comes to enforce "his" laws should pay attention to the fate of members of MOVE and the Branch Davidians. The government wins every time." There is a long history of powerful, organized, and well armed governments not being able to handle organized resistance by lightly armed individuals. But granted, if they are going to use nukes, they will "win".

But seriously, no sane person believes the US military will attempt a coup. The fight is not just about owning a gun. It is about erosion. There is no evidence in history of anybody (individuals or governments), giving up power they slowly acquired. The fight of the constitution is not one about any individual right. It is about the collective. The very arguments being used for restricting handguns are now being applied to restricting other individual rights (sorry, "suspending"). And it is often in the name of safety. Visit the capitol sometimes. Over one of the doors it is written: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's sometimes attributed to Jefferson, and sometimes to Franklin. But what do they know . . . founding fathers made mistakes, you know.

About me: atheist, engineer, middle age, somewhat affluent, naturalized citizen, recreational shooter, and annoyed to have someone tell me I can't have something because someone else may abuse what they have.

GO DOMEHOME