By now you’ve weathered the global wire’s blast
furnace regarding the shooting that took place last week at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Connecticut. The
news media have covered it relentlessly, it has been the forefront topic of
table conversation everywhere you dined, and it’s likely you can’t open any of your
social network interfaces (or is it interfeces?!) without someone’s soapboxed
opinion repeated ad nauseum via one of those passé clipart memes. Suffice to say I’m still shocked, troubled,
angry, sad, and a host of other emotions that we all likely share. I am also something else—curious.
The media would have you believe school shootings
are a new phenomena, or at least, something that has escalated in the past
dozen or so years.
By appearances alone
this is somewhat truthful.
In fact,
school
shootings and other acts of terrorism by mentally compromised gunmen have
been ongoing since guns became readily available.
Just as those victims in the
2011 Norway attacks,
Virginia Tech
Massacre in 2007,
Columbine,
and going back further to the
1966 University of Texas
tower sniper, met their fate, so did others much longer ago.
Researching these cases, just about every firearm
category was utilized, some more effectively than others.
Clearly, however, if someone wants to cause
harm, there is no shortage of ways to do so.
Easily one could conclude that banning one of the more efficient types (assault
rifles) would greatly reduce body counts.
I’m not so sure.
“If guns are outlawed…”
Hand’s up—who has a friend on Facebook or Twitter
who is right now preaching woe if assault rifles are banned? I have several. Good people too, and I fully appreciate their
passion and enthusiasm in defense of…defense.
Yet, some of them may be slightly too feverish in their solutions, or so
it would seem.
“Put four fully armed marines in every school.”
“We armed the pilots; arm the teachers!”
“Arm everybody!”
“Forks made me fat!”
…and the other side screams:
“Ban all guns!”
“Weapons of war have no place in the home.”
“Look at Europe’s gun death rate!”
“Do something!
Do anything!”
Such extremes.
Yet, some teachers are
already
armed in some Texas schools.
Texas!
Does that surprise anyone?
Maybe they’re on to something, but let’s hop
into Baumgartner's handy helium balloon and ascend to the 128,000ft view.
Are we paying way too much attention to
violent death and its media sensationalism in the first place?
I mean, let’s have a frank and honest
perspective here:
We’re talking about 26
people that were senselessly killed by a senseless maniac.
Okay, now add all those other “notable
shootings” listed above and you might achieve a toll of 100.
Around 100 fatalities and countless thousands
are maimed on a
daily basis driving
on America’s roads.
A large percentage
of those are done in by maniacs of the drunk persuasion.
How about preventable medical errors?
Now we’re talking about
hundreds of thousands
each year.
Pharmageddon has been around
for quite some time, yet no public outcry, no visits from the President, no
round-the-clock journalism, and not even a faint yawn or byline in the local obituaries.
Well, that’s another gripe entirely, so let’s
get back to guns…because guns are a cool topic.
Yeah – guns!
(because I don’t see
a ban on cars coming anytime soon, or doctors for that matter)
It’s every law-abiding American’s right by the Second
Amendment to keep and bear arms. Now
what did our founding fathers mean by “arms” exactly? Oh, well, let’s not lift Pandora’s box lid,
shall we? Instead let’s limit the
discussion to the commonly defined (hear the angels hark) “assault rifle”. What is that, exactly?
Hold it!
Evidently, there is some ambiguity with the term “assault
weapon” that many news organizations regularly interchange with “assault rifle”. While assault rifles are military-looking
weapons, they are not necessarily military-grade firearms until they fire
military-grade ammunition. For the sake
of saving another essay on that topic, let’s classify assault rifles as those
typically designed for military use, and not for hunting or classic home
defense. M-16, AK-47, and MP5, for
example, are classic assault rifles used by the world’s military and law
enforcement. Make them semi-automatic
(fires one round per trigger actuation) with lower-grade ammo, and you have a
devastating weapon legal for civilian purchase.
The real question is, are these weapons truly necessary or practical for
personal defense or hunting.
Let’s be honest here; who goes hunting with an
assault rifle? My father is an avid
outdoorsman, with countless writing credits in shooting sports. His hands have been wrapped around an untold variety of firearms for nearly seven decades.
I’ve listened intently at another incalculable number of hunting anecdotes,
and never once was an assault rifle mentioned in the same paragraph with
hunting. Yet, I have no doubt that
someone somewhere is hunting with an AR-15 just to make a point. But is it practical? I’d enjoy some debate on this topic. I think it would be rather entertaining!
My take is this:
For hunting in general, the traditional tools do the job much more
effectively than those meant for the battleground. If you need a 30-round clip to bring down
your trophy buck, you’re doing it wrong.
I don’t think a Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle is the best choice for
ducks either, although one might enjoy the entertainment in the process. Oh, that’s a visual to cleanse! What about defending the home? Granted, some assault weapons..er..rifles
would be quite punitive for an intruder, or a dozen of them for that
matter. But tell me, just how accessible
is your presumably loaded assault rifle from any point in the house? Hopefully you’ll have the time to grab it and
aim in tight quarters. Doesn’t a handgun
make more sense? What about nifty 12 gauge
shotgun with a short barrel? Yes, tell
me what you think works best in every situation, including those if you’re
running about in public.
“T, you’re missing the point. This is about our freedom.”
Freedom, yes.
Freedom to own, freedom of choice, and the pursuit to maintain
freedom. Why do we—American civilians,
that is—feel like we need weapons of war in our possession in the first
place? Some of you will automatically
spew coffee at that question. “Don’t
forget how this country came to existence!”
Ah, militia. The answer, or
rather, deterrent to a totalitarian government.
We must be armed—well armed—to prevent a corrupt regime from using the
military against its citizens. Likewise,
should our military fail in war, would-be invaders must know the hell that
awaits—every citizen with a gun pointed at you, including our children. Sorry, no.
This is utter fantasy.
Reality Check: We’re not living in the times of the
musket or Minié ball. There is so much
disparity between consumer firearms and military hardware today, any civilian
resistance in a total war scenario equals a speedy extermination. If their conventional weaponry wasn’t enough,
the government has chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons at its
disposal. Yeah, good luck with your
badass rifle, kid. Red Dawn won’t play
like the movie. Your only realistic chance
is diplomacy, and, if I may paraphrase an old golf adage, “Wars must first be
fought in the mind.”
Society’s to blame!
That sounds very much like a line in an old
Monty Python skit, only I’m not laughing.
President Obama has a new mission, you know. Although he hasn’t quite delineated his exact
plan, the word on the street says he’s pushing a new ban on assault weapons…er…rifles. Or was
it weapons? We may never know, actually,
since we’re all dead according to some Myan calendar sots—or perhaps it’s that
Joe Biden has been assigned to front Obama’s gun control policy. Yep, society failed those poor kids at Sandy
Hook. It’s our fault and we could have
done something about it. Maybe. Never mind the lunatic who actually pulled
the trigger repeatedly.
Okay, I admit it; I admire Ronald Reagan’s ability
to put things in perspective.
“We must reject the idea that every time a law's
broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept
that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
Accountable, yes.
Accounted? That’s debatable. Blame the guns first, then another extroverted
reason; medications, substance abuse, psychological condition, etc. Whatever; just don’t blame the actual
killer. It’s not their fault!
Sarcasm aside, obviously the reason for anyone
embarking on a shooting rampage is much more complex than any one factor.
60 Minutes mentioned a “path to violence”
this past Sunday in a piece on Sandy Hook.
They referenced that same phrase on a
show that aired January
16, 2011 discussing commonalities with 83 actual and would-be assassins.
It’s never one factor alone.
Firearms are but one facet of a complex
explanation.
For politicians however,
gun legislation offers the best bang for the public appeasement buck, and contains
the least path of resistance.
That is,
compared to the other elephants in the room.
“Why no discussion on family values?”
I overheard that question this past weekend. The person exasperated at the knee-jerk demand
for new assault rifle bans. And, there
is an ocean of truth in that question, but the answer is simple. Per above, it’s political quicksand. Think of it as attempting to instruct another
parent on how best they should raise their children. Again, fantasyland.
Medication issues?
Maybe. Tough lobby to crack. Substance abuse? Rare.
What about early detection and constant vigilance? Please, let’s not highlight the obvious! What about exposure to violence at an improper
age? Are we creating murderers from our
youth via violent video games and graphic television? Is this part of the “path to violence?” Wait.
Before I get thrown into any group, I don’t believe for one moment that
violent games compel little Timmy to pilfer his father’s gun cabinet and massacre
an entire church. I do, however, believe
that graphically violent games desensitize players somewhat. Look, a dead body! Big deal, I create those by the hundreds
every five minutes, and mine are much more gruesome. Yours smell though. Points for that.
ENDGAME
Getting back to the heart of this discussion, with
regard to assault rifle ownership, how do you see their future?
Realistically, Congress will seek pacifying
legislation for gun control, and if that bill is reasonable, it will pass. “Reasonable” to me means no outright ban on
assault weapons/rifles, but loophole closures, tougher ownership barriers,
including increased regulation and taxation, and the creation of a special research
task force on prevention. The politicians
get their win, and so do the majority of assault rifle enthusiasts who won’t
lose their weapons.
Will that prevent another shooting spree? Of course not. It only has to prevent one. The others must be prevented by culture
migration. That job, in my opinion, must
begin with conscious, responsible journalism.
“..first won
in the mind."
~T
