Though most of my essays, at least recently, don't deserve read as they have been on films and philosophical texts I know none of you will probably ever read or see (though you should), this essay is one you should actually read, as it deals with a topic on the tongues of Americans nationwide, and one that will most certainly come to be the subject of even fiercer debate in the future. I welcome all comments, and will post them of course, if you'd like. Thoughts are to be sent to Tom@pukeonpavement.com. I know there are a few mistakes as far as grammer, typing, etc., but the copy on which I marked these errors is currently not in grasp, so go ahead and read this knowing that I will go back and correct the small errors later on.
Tom Acton
Political Science
Dr. Connelly
25 April 2001
There currently exists many, many gun related laws on the books. If enforced, and enforced well, these laws would serve all the protection American can ever hope to have from crime, without giving up an insane amount of freedom that would easily outweigh any gained sense of security.
The NRA has taken a stance against the mandatory waiting periods on gun purchases that were first enacted as part of the Brady Bill and its like-minded, state-orientated legislation. The idea behind the waiting period was supposedly so policing agencies could do a background check on the gun buyer. In the days of the instant background check, the waiting period may be obsolete. There is also the notion that the waiting period serves as a "cooling off" period for gun buyers. That would be in reference to the huge number of murderers that are simply furious at someone, make the conscious, pre-meditated decision to kill that person, drive to the store, purchase a gun for the purpose of that murder, BUT upon waiting that seven days, have realized the errors in their ways, and have decided against the murder.
Now I don't have the statistics before me just this moment, and I'm not too sure Gallop has tackled this one yet, but something tells me that scenario does not play out too often. Though it surely does no good at all, other than making it positively sure that a background check is possible, I really have no problem with the waiting period. If you cannot wait a week for your gun, that I am really not confident that you would be able to use that gun properly in any of its applicable situations. Impatience is not a desired trait in any hunter, other sportsman, or even humble vigilante. Plus, if the waiting period means even a single less anti-gun advocate off my back, well, that's a law I'll vote to keep in place.
All too often in this society, politicians say whatever it is they think they need to say in order to get elected. At least, one hopes that is what they are doing, because the worry felt from knowing the leaders of this country are that incredibly misguided could crush a man.
The truth is that all too often the laws are written by politicians that are not too horribly knowledgeable about the topic in question. Currently, with the list of "assault weapons" that have been banned, the ignorance of our government is all too apparent. It is very possible to take one of the so-called "assault weapons" that are banned, change the stock to a more Davy Crockett-esque wood stock, change the look of the sight, possibly go to the extreme measure of shortening the clip to hold five less bullets, and find yourself with a completely legal hunting rifle. While some would look on this as a loophole that needs to be closed in order to protect the cowering citizenry, I simply look on this as more legislated ignorance.
Time and time again I have found that those raised along side guns are among the most responsible with them, respect them the most, and understand them the best. Also, those that are the most responsible with them, respect them, and understand them, are almost always among those who understand the need for our freedom to bare arms. Too many officials are not knowledgeable about the guns they seek to ban, and it shows in the laws the herald.
There are people in our country that, when discussing firearms, run to statistics about the large number of suicides committed with guns. Quite frankly, I do not think this needs to be discussed in too much depth, as, well, it's pretty shallow. At the risk of sounding unsympathetic, which I most certainly am not, would the public prefer those that chose to kill themselves do so by jumping off bridges?
There are those out there that can cite alarming statistics about accidents that occur with firearms. The explanation for this phenomenon is simple. Guns are in the hands of those that should not be in possession of them. Does that mean outlaw guns? No, that means that this country needs to promote firearm education and safety instruction. Currently in this country there exists a vast number of hunter safety courses, as well as those gun owners for the non-hunter. Most states that allow for concealed weapon permits require them to be taken by applicants. Despite these programs, people insist on being stupid. I do not believe every person should own a gun. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring extensive safety courses for those wishing to own a gun. In fact, those extensive courses should be required in the gun-friendly society I hope this country will one day become.
Those afflicted with a bleeding heart will always point to the fact that year after year, children are killed while playing with their parents' guns. If you have children that are too young to teach about the firearms in your home, than those guns need to be locked away and out of access of the children. I am as concerned with protection of one's family as the next man, but the threat of your children getting hurt with your gun is currently greater than the threat of them being hurt by any home invader, or similar threat. Once a child in the same home as a gun is slightly older, intense and immediate instruction on the danger and seriousness of that firearm should begin.
Through my whole life, there have been guns in my home. Not until new laws were passed in the mid-90's were those guns locked away. Neither myself nor my younger brother have ever played with these guns. Never. Since the time I was old enough to understand the language being used, I was told not to touch the guns when not in the company of my father. Does this mean I never shot them? No, of course not. It means I was taught on their proper use, and the severity of actions taken without outside those uses was explained repeatedly and effectively. There is no reason similar instruction cannot be given to the children of gun owners country wide.
Though it would be incredibly hard to accurately survey, I would be interested to find out the percentage of gun accidents that occur in homes where both the children and the parents were taught, and made to understand the dangers of firearms and how they are to be properly used. The presumption is that the percentage is much smaller than in the rest of the gun-present homes in the United States. An even more impossible, but interesting statistic would be the number of gun accidents per capita a two centuries ago when most certainly guns were more prevalent. Possibly Americans feel too safe nowadays, with their fancy police forces and currently only mildly-oppressive government. On the other hand, maybe they have just given up on not being the victim, as legislation and effort focused towards ridding the country of illegally held guns, being used by criminals, is meager at best.
The fact that a large majority of crimes committed with guns are done so with illegally obtained firearms has seemed to escape the public. There has been stricter legislation passed in Michigan regarding the trafficking of illegal guns, but by and large, American anti-gun propagandists choose to look past the fact that criminals do not get their guns through legal means. The murders that take place each day in cities across the country are done largely with guns stolen, or bought off the black market. How else can one explain the huge number of repeat offenders of gun laws. A felon cannot legally own a firearm in the United States of America. Each year, some new politician proves my theory that this government knows not nearly as much as they should about guns, since they are attempting to pass legislation regarding the guns, by saying that he wants to take guns out of the hands of criminals with some new law. If one could go through and mark out every line in every lawbook that reeks of redundancy regarding felons buying guns, all that would be left would be a page or two of legislation that certainly would not be able to entice special interest groups to give up their money to candidates running on an age old, previously built and enacted platform. If all laws on the books were enforced well, the drop in crime that everyone would like to see would occur, all without infringing upon the rights of those amongst us who chose to follow all laws, respect the lives and well-being of others, and still own our guns.
Another aspect to the gun control debate is the necessity of the right to own guns in order to form a regulated militia. Those in this society that have the slightest apprehension about the notion that never in the future will our government assume too much power or oppress its people in any way, are seen as insane, paranoid, and irrational. Anyone with a fear like that might as well hold up in a Montana cabin and refuse to pay taxes, or so our media would have us believe. By finding the craziest, most paranoid, Second Amendment defender to interview, the media has created the image of the radical militiaman and made it the only apparent, and only plausible, persona for a person of this philosophy to fit. The fact is that, though the need for an armed rebellion is certainly unlikely, and incredibly hard to picture ever happening, it has happened elsewhere. Often cited as examples are the German Holocaust or the several and seemingly constant rebellions and military overthrows in Africa. Certainly no one in pre-Holocaust Germany thought something that terrible could ever happen. An armed citizenry could take great strides in preventing such an occurrence here in the United States.
Apparently people in this country have grown too comfortable with their nation and their government. They have completely forgotten that this country was formed by armed citizens who took a stand against oppression. Despite the conflicts still raging the world over, Americans have collectively decided that fighting for your rights physically is a thing of the past. In an era where it sometimes seems rights are being slowly torn away from the fabric of American life, the incredibly distant view of a government that needs to be held in check with the threat of violence seems to be creeping towards the present, even if it is doing so at such a slow and easily redirected pace. There is no reason to take up arms against our government now, and there will most likely not be any reason to do so in our lifetimes, but that is not to say that the time will never come. If that time does come, our people need to be equipped to offer at least a token defense. Certainly no gang of rebels with their twelve gauges could defeat our military, but certainly our army could not maintain control of an unruly public, if unified in their dislike of their current government, and armed with only their twelve gauges.
A more pressing reason for ceasing the increasing trend of creating more laws against owning guns is the crime problem our nation's cities are facing. In many places, walking down the street after dusk is insane, and that is just not something that needs to be.
I helped a friend of mine move to St. Louis a couple years ago. He was in a college neighborhood, attending some trade school. Well outside of his two block area was a slum no reasonable person could feel especially safe in. Adding to the risk was the fact that out of the surrounding communities, the poor college students were still the richest, and at the same time, the most venerable. I offered to teach this friend how to use a gun, and even allow him to keep one of ours at his apartment, only after he decreed that he would not buy a gun. He refused, having always hated guns apparently. Two months later his apartment was broken into while he was there. Luckily the intruder had not realized anyone was home and was scared away easily. Had that intruder been a little more intent on getting what he could, my friend might have been in trouble.
Another friend of mine's family was literally held at gunpoint by a small band of thieves in their home in Chicago. His father was tied to a rail while the group ran around collecting whatever they could. Their alarm system signaled the police, but they arrived to late to stop anyone. What if those men had decided they did not want to leave any witnesses to their crimes? What if the THREE times that same person has been mugged (or been the victim of an attempted mugging) the situation had become even more violent than they already were? People living in communities where living through crime is a way of life should be allowed to arm themselves for the protection of themselves, their family, and their belongings. As already stated, criminals have guns, and will continue to have guns illegally. What good to disarming the law-abiding section of the population do?
Conceal-carry laws have done some good. In states where "shall-issue" laws have been enacted, meaning persons meeting certain criteria are always allowed to carry concealed weapons in most places, violent crime has gone down. No sane person will try and hold up another person he believes to be carrying a gun. I do not have the statistics here, as I did last year while researching this, but in many states, the conceal-carry laws have been more than just successful.
Many thought that a law like that would lead to a huge rise in vigilantism, as well as accidental shootings, and even an increased murder rate (as guns would supposedly be more readily available when murderers decided to kill). None of those fears have proven to be based in fact. In actuality, the number of people convicted of crimes while legally carrying a gun are insanely low, tremendously lower than even the moderate anti-gun advocate had predicted, and easily low enough to justify the law, when compared to the crime prevented.
The bottom line is that I can defend my home and person better than the police. It is not their fault; they cannot be everywhere at once. For someone to say that I should not be allowed to do so, with my gun, despite the fact that I am more than adequately trained (or would be, if I went through the courses needed for such laws to be enacted) and have always been a law-abiding citizen, is absurd. Why should a government be able to tell me what I can do and cannot to do defend myself when I pose no risk to the innocent public?
All too often in this country, we hear the sad and regretful story of a victim, for instance, James Brady, and we rush to legislation. Also too often, in this country, people pass judgement over issues they know very little about. Unfortunately, both scenarios are playing themselves out currently. With little help from a media which seems eager to show the NRA and other gun advocates as right fringe radicals, and quite literally a few rotten and misguided apples spoiling the bunch in the way of recent shootings, the road to true freedom for gun owners seems an arduous one at the very least. One can only hope that America will see the light, and make the realization that guns, when used properly, are not the problem in this country, and that in fact, they may be a very effective way of dispelling some of the problems we are facing as a nation. Also, one would hope the people of this country realize that though our government is fine and dandy today, and will be tomorrow, that maybe twenty years from now, or maybe fifty years from now, it might not be, and the time will have arisen when Americans need to defend themselves through all available means against their government. Hopefully Americans will realize that the fear that has been held by some regarding firearms is and will continue to be, for the most part, unfounded, illogical, and just plain wrong. Hopefully these realizations will come before it is too late, and the time has passed when the right steps towards ensuring freedom from all dangers could have been taken.