PERSONAL NOTE: I am a gun owner. I own a Glock 17 9mm pistol. I enjoy target shooting and recently I took a class in Tactical Point Shooting (which is learning techniques regarding safety and shooting in an urban environment including dealing with hostage situations, anti-terrorism and other things). I plan to take another more advanced class later in the year.
All this said, I am also in favor of extremely strict Gun Control Laws. I am completely in favor of a ten-day waiting period (and actually would make it 30 days if up to me). I also think that people should have to take a general licensing class (like getting a drivers license) to handle a deadly weapon. If anything, my shooting class taught me just how much I didn't know and just how lethal a weapon like a gun can be. However, I am "pro Second Amendment" and I do not favor a ban on either Assault weapons, or other types of weapons. So this is where I am coming from.
With the tragedy of the killings in Aurora, CO, America has embarked upon "kitchen debates" (because really, the candidates are not touching this one right now) about Gun Control and what role do they play in our society. It has gotten me thinking because I think that I can see both sides of the debate and honestly I think in this case both sides have merit. I also think both sides have their faults.
One thing about Guns is how easy they make it to settle things much more finally and directly. Shooting someone with a gun is much easier than beating someone to death or stabbing them with a knife. I practice a Martial Art (Krav Maga) which is both very aggressive and is designed for combat situations (rather than tournaments). I can say with some authority that fighting is never pretty and you never know how a fight will end. In fights, size, speed, age, agility all matter to varying degrees. Guns... well they take those elements out to a degree. Anyone can pull a gun and anyone can get really lucky. You don't risk firing a gun (or the risk is less) to settle a problem.
Same as with a knife. A gun is much easier to use than a knife. It simply takes certain elements of risk out of knife fighting. There is not that personal contact with the victim. Shooting someone from 20 yards away is very different than stabbing someone. It's a lot less "up close and personal" so to speak.
Statistics in America prove that gun violence is an "epidemic", particularly in poorer, urban areas. Guns have replaced the old "rumbles" where while people did get hurt and rarely killed and turned those fights into battles of life and death. Just a cursory look at statistics bears this out. According to Wikipedia, weapon caused deaths are overwhelmingly caused by guns and handguns in particular. And there is this:
"The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than most other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[41]"
Then there is this:
a cartoon that a Pro-Gun friend of mine posted on FB. And this to me is telling in how very wrong it is. It is true that if someone had had a gun in Aurora they might have been able to stop the massacre, but the key word here is might. More likely (as was mentioned here), Gun fire from the crowd would have probably caused MORE death and destruction than was already inflicted. (Again, as was mentioned here), Hitting an armored moving target in the confusion and gas would be a completely tough shot. Most likely there would have been more casualties from shooting in this crowded situation. How many more people would have had to die to justify shooting James Holmes.
ON THE OTHER HAND.... Holmes broke no laws in purchasing his weapons. He got things legally, and given the maniacal, sociopathic nature of the shooting even strict gun control laws probably would not have stopped him. I say probably, because honestly, I don't know all of the details of this event. BUT, it does go to show that indeed the adage regarding "if criminals really want to get guns, they will" is true. It wasn't Gun Control Laws that failed us here.
Also, while people want to "blame" assault weapons, as the Wiki article shows, legally bought assault weapons are not a major percentage of gun deaths. Most people buy them because they are fun to shoot and in my opinion, they are fun to shoot. I don't own an assault rifle and I have no plans to ever do so, I don't really see how I have a need for one however, I do know people that own them and that is exactly how they feel about it.
I think rather than focus on Guns in this debate there is a discussion to be had about the de-sensitization that our society has towards gun violence and violence in general. "Shooter games" that glorify the destructive power of higher and higher caliber weaponry, movies that portray violence as the only way to solve problems (which granted is a lot more fun/escapist to watch than seeing people sitting around a table discussing non-violent conflict resolution), are pervasive in our society. Even in our language to each other. How many times, (and I am as guilty of this as anyone) do we resort to violent language to express ourselves? How many times do we excuse violence as a means to an end?
Violence only touches most of us in cursory ways. I spar for a hobby, yet it's just that. I get the occasional black eye, bloody nose, and have even broken a bone... but it never was "violent" (meaning that it was not done to inflict pain). It was never random, it was not meant with malice, and it is never uncontrolled. Aggresiveness lives in all of us, but violent, or uncontrolled aggressiveness is something that we keep at bay and see as an "outlier" (for good reason I might add).
So what do we do to make this better? I think education is the key. I think there is too much emphasis on violence as the solution and not enough on the short and long term effects of violence. For me, doing martial arts and taking shooting classes shows me the true power inherent in these things. Handling a gun gives you power, understanding the full effects of what you are doing or can do... is sobering IF you truly understand what those effects are. Causing pain, and mayhem is NOT a means in itself unless one is a truly twisted individual and "likes" to cause pain and suffering.
How does this manifest itself.. Society has to have a discussion just what this means. We go to war in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but we don't see the bodies come home or the injuries on T.V. All we see is the bravery and camaraderie and occasionally we see the toll that it takes. But unlike Vietnam we have really no understanding of what is happening. We don't want to see guys/gals coming home in body bags. We don't want to see the effect today's weapons have. It's much more fun to see people get shot up in a game and never have to worry what that really means. We don't want to know about the screams for mercy, the sighs of the dying, the smell of cordite, the burning. It's too inconvenient. I have never experienced that and I pray I never do. But I have a number of friends who have and when they talk about (on rare occasions) it is enough to make me understand that none of this is a joke. We have to be better at communicating this.
I am not proposing a radical shift for our society, what I am saying will take time and patience. I think as a society we have to get over the "bravado" that is enforced and be willing to say "it's ok... there has to be a better way." We have to get rid of the silly hyperbole around violence as it has pervaded our conversations and understand that when we speak the language of hate and violence we simply encourage it more. As we are human, there will be violence. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary. Sometimes it's absolutely needed. But I think it should also be completely understood what that violence means. Would I use my gun if I had too.... I don't know, but, I think I could. I THINK I could shoot someone if my life or the life of my friends and family were at stake. But that would only be as a last resort. It would only be in an actionable situation. I can say, though, that even if I could do it, I would not want to do it.
I only ask that people please discuss this with their friends and their family. Please discuss how hyperbole and the quick use of violent rhetoric can lead to violence. Then think about what the long term effects could be. Is it really worth it.
Peace... Shalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment