On Guns

Humans have been killing each other since rocks were invented. Some say the instinct to kill is innate. It’s a primal thing. They say, just like Stone Age cavemen, we’re all capable of purposely taking another’s life, given sufficient reason (i.e. sufficient in the mind of the killer). Ironically, as we evolved intellectually and socially, we also created justifications for all sorts of killing - murder for profit, murder for power, murder for jealousy, murder for revenge, murder for religion, murder for recreation. We also developed more efficient ways of achieving our homicidal aims. We discovered we could kill multiple people at the same time, from a distance, without putting ourselves in danger. We’re so clever.

Nowadays in America, as we go about our everyday life, working, playing, shopping, praying, sleeping, etc…, some say we should be prepared to kill someone at all times. There’s no telling when a stranger (or friend or family member, for that matter) could justify attacking us. We must be prepared so the other guy doesn’t get the drop on us.

So, guns. We’ve all had the discussion about the topic of guns in American culture and politics. Here’s me having that discussion with myself. I don't believe this societal ill will be solved in my lifetime, so I leave this as a personal footnote for future generations.

Guns don’t kill people.

• Granted. Their use or misuse is entirely in the control of the wielder. They are just a tool that might be used for murder - or for recreation

Bad guys with guns are stopped by good guys with guns

• Sure, this happens. Rarely. Unless you count those situations where the good guys get the bad guys after he’s already shot 13 people. There are some people who, when faced with a situation where they themselves are faced with a gunman in body armor, wish they had a gun. Others wish the gunman didn’t have a gun. We’ve all heard of that time when the result confirms our bias. The reality is that good guys only react after the fact, and when they do, there’s no guarantee that they will be successful in stopping the bad guy or that they won’t make the situation worse.

If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns

-or-

Laws can’t control the lawless

• Gun advocates are dead set against a gun database. Their reasoning is that they don’t want the government to know what guns they have. If the feds know where the guns are, it will be easier to focus in the most 'freedom-loving' when disarming the population. The advantage of a gun database is that a gun can be traced from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer to gun owner. So, when a gun is used in a crime, it would be possible to determine how the gun got into the criminal’s hands. That’s a good thing. At some point in the chain, the gun was transferred through illegal means and that source of guns to criminals can be eliminated. Currently, one of the reasons we can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, is because law-abiding citizens are afraid the government will take them out first if there is ever a need to control the populace for yet-to-be-determined reasons.

Something Chicago something

• Yes, despite restrictive gun laws, Chicago has high rates of gun violence. You can debate what constitutes restrictive and high rates. You can talk about where the guns used in Chicago come from and who is using them. You can say that Chicago is worse than a city with permissive gun laws. But gun control advocates are not focusing on red states and rural communities. They want to eliminate gun violence everywhere including Chicago. They want measures taken that will help reduce gun violence wherever it happens. Gun advocates couldn’t care less about violence in Chicago.

They want to grab all the guns when kids are killed, but don’t say a word when…

• This is one of the dumbest ones. Take any example of gun violence by any perpetrator against any victim and you won’t find a single gun control advocate excusing, condoning, or ignoring it. Yes, a school shooting where multiple children are gunned down will arouse anger and engagement, but the same people who are outraged over Uvalde wanted to prevent James Hodgkinson from shooting up a baseball game and Michael Louis from shooting up a medical office. They want it all to stop.

It’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it

• There are actually four possible scenarios. I’ve ranked them in order of which scenario I'd prefer to live my life.

1. Don’t have gun, don’t need it.

2. Have gun, don’t need it

3. Have gun, need it

4. Don’t have gun, need it

You couldn’t kill me if I’m armed

• This assumes that the armed individual is aware someone is about to kill them and where that killer is. I can only imagine the scenario this armed individual has constructed in their mind, but the chances that this situation arises and it plays out the way he or she imagines are very, very small.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a slave.

• We’re all citizens. The armed man has no more rights than an unarmed man.

If guns cause crimes, then matches cause arson

-or-

If guns cause crimes, then spoons make you fat

• I don’t know what to say to this. Who says guns cause crimes?

Criminals love guns because it makes their job safer

• The intimation here, again, is that if you take guns away from Joe and Jane Average, the criminals will have free rein to rape and pillage. It follows then that Joe and Jane Average are the ones who are stopping a national wave of crime by virtue of possessing their guns as a deterrent. If one stops and really thinks about this, one will realize how ridiculous this assertion is. I mean, that isn't working.

Law abiding criminals do not exist

• All criminals are law abiding citizens until they are caught breaking the law. A virtuous, upstanding, gun-owning citizen is one slip-up or life crisis away from becoming a criminal with a gun.

AR doesn’t stand for Assault Rifle

• Who gives a fuck?

Need vs. Want - All adults must earn a certificate proving they know the difference before being issued any type of license at all. You can’t always get what you want.

I need it for defense

• There are scenarios in which having a gun handy could result in you bravely defending you and yours, true. There are many more scenarios in which your gun that you have secured in your home for peace of mind, is unavailable to you and worthless in the crucial moment. You might say that open carry laws are necessary for that very reason. You still have to be in the ‘right’ place at the ‘right’ time for life to imitate your favorite Western or Jason Bourne movie. Also, as a deterrent, it obviously is not effective either. If one pays attention, one will notice that more bullets are flying in these days of easy access to guns, not less.

I need it for hunting and protecting my herds and/or crops

• This one could be legitimate. Hunting is still a pastime for a segment of the population.

I need it in case the government infringes on my rights

• The government doesn’t need to infringe on your individual rights. Those in power have much more effective means to control the populace. What we need to watch out for is those individuals who seek to overturn free and fair elections and not allow them anywhere near the levers of power from the local to the federal level.

I need it for recreational target shooting

• Target shooting has been around forever using guns, arrows, balls, beanbags, wads of spit-soaked paper, what have you. It’s a challenge and who doesn’t like a challenge? Is it a need? Not really.

I need it for my personal collection

• Anyone collecting weapons for display or investment is probably not going to be firing them with the intent to do bodily harm. Those who collect a stockpile of guns in hopes of being the king of a future hellscape dystopia are the dangerous ones.

I need it for my job

• This is an indictment of society as a whole. Again, this is exacerbated by the increase in availability of guns.