Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
I notice that “discussions†of the various aspects of gun control tend to get rather contentious…. I plan to muddy the water even further with my thoughts:
I admit to having rather ambiguous notions on this issue. I’m a police officer; in the biz for 30+ years. I’m also a weapons enthusiast. I’ve owned, at one time or another, thirty or forty handguns, a variety of long arms, and as well a variety of non-explosive weapons including bows, blowguns, atlatls, spears, and so forth. I reloaded my own ammo and cast my own bullets.
As a result, I’m familiar with the legal use of firearms in all forms, from sport to self-defense. Of course, I’ve seen the results of the illegal use as well as a result of my employment.
We were given a marvelous document in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, we were given a second amendment that was, to put it mildly, rather poorly worded, at least as it applies to our times. Back in the late 1700s, the “arms†our forbears were speaking of were muzzle loading muskets and rifles. Very effective in massed military formations in use at the time, and nice for taking game as well. Not the sort of thing you’d be likely to try to commit mass murder with. “Would everyone just hold their position whilst I reload? Thanks awfully…â€
Our founding fathers did not envision AK-47s, Mac-10s, or 19-shot Berrettas. So, we were given that our rights to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, but also the notion that this was part and parcel of a “well-regulated militiaâ€. Lots of words have been expended on THAT little phrase!
The idea seemingly that citizens should have weapons so that they could be called up to fight for God and Country, at least to the casual reader.
Now, the more radical of our pro-firearms types buy into that “militia†thing very strongly, and will flatly tell you that they need military (contemporary, that is) weapons as a bulwark against tyranny. When the black helicopters land, they’ll be ready. They also point out that being familiar with such weapons makes it easier to ease folks into the military for our legitimate (???) forays into world politics. Of course, most of the theorists who maintain this notion seem to be white males who are a bit past the age where they might expect to be conscripted.
On the home front, there is a fairly large segment of the population who demand the right to defend themselves. They point to rampant crime, and can’t stand the idea that they might be assaulted, attacked, or victimized without the chance to defend themselves. I admit I somewhat sympathize with this idea. On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that in most areas of the country, the “rampant†crime is rather overblown, conditioned by our “if it bleeds, it leads†journalism. The chances of any particular individual being the victim of a violent crime are very small indeed, dependent of course on location and activity. Running a liquor store in the inner city tends to be rather hazardous.
The downside of having handy weapons for self-defense is that they tend to be used for impulsive activities like homicide and suicide. Domestic homicides far exceed homicides committed in the course of a robbery or other felony. In fact, suicides exceed homicides, as I recall. Some of the inflated figures for homicides pushed around by the “anti†crowd include suicide figures.
On rare occasions, you get the situation where a deranged individual decides to commit mass murder. This is greatly facilitated by having semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities, of course. Still, where there’s a will there’s a way…Charles Stuart Whitman committed his rampage with conventional firearms, as I recall. Our department traded in our politically-incorrect 13-round magazines for politically-acceptable 10-round magazines. I can reload in a tad under a second, on a good day….
The pro-gun folks promote laws that punish the illegal use of firearms, rather than ownership. Many states, including my own, have “armed criminal action†statutes that add time to convictions if a weapon is used. Unfortunately, the courts system being what it is, this tends to be used as an incentive to get confessions. “OK, Billy, if you plead to the burglary, we’ll drop the ACA charge.†Not quite the intent of the law.
We’d note that such laws have no effect whatever on the deranged. The guy who’s “going postalâ€, or the fellow who wants to commit “suicide by cop†are not going to be deterred by the legal consequences of their actions.
Do I have any concrete suggestions? Not really. We live in a society that’s very fond of our weapons, and there are, by most counts, enough for every able man, woman, and child to have their very own. (or several) We are an independent lot, and rather distrustful of authority. We have a homicide rate that’s higher than any other “industrialized†nation. (Still, better than a lot of “undeveloped†places) Confiscation or draconian control would not be popular politically, and we should have by now learned from our mistakes in attempting to control drugs and alcohol.
Maybe a bit of perspective. Our homicide rate is high, but only about half of the death rate from motor vehicle accidents, and a fraction of those caused by tobacco. The vast majority of us will never encounter violent crime, or have to defend ourselves from same.
Even in my line of work, shooting incidents are rare. I have never fired my weapon in anger. Many officers go through entire careers without using the weapon, or perhaps once or twice, and we’re on the Front Lines, as it were.
There, hope I cleared that all up….
I admit to having rather ambiguous notions on this issue. I’m a police officer; in the biz for 30+ years. I’m also a weapons enthusiast. I’ve owned, at one time or another, thirty or forty handguns, a variety of long arms, and as well a variety of non-explosive weapons including bows, blowguns, atlatls, spears, and so forth. I reloaded my own ammo and cast my own bullets.
As a result, I’m familiar with the legal use of firearms in all forms, from sport to self-defense. Of course, I’ve seen the results of the illegal use as well as a result of my employment.
We were given a marvelous document in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, we were given a second amendment that was, to put it mildly, rather poorly worded, at least as it applies to our times. Back in the late 1700s, the “arms†our forbears were speaking of were muzzle loading muskets and rifles. Very effective in massed military formations in use at the time, and nice for taking game as well. Not the sort of thing you’d be likely to try to commit mass murder with. “Would everyone just hold their position whilst I reload? Thanks awfully…â€
Our founding fathers did not envision AK-47s, Mac-10s, or 19-shot Berrettas. So, we were given that our rights to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, but also the notion that this was part and parcel of a “well-regulated militiaâ€. Lots of words have been expended on THAT little phrase!
The idea seemingly that citizens should have weapons so that they could be called up to fight for God and Country, at least to the casual reader.
Now, the more radical of our pro-firearms types buy into that “militia†thing very strongly, and will flatly tell you that they need military (contemporary, that is) weapons as a bulwark against tyranny. When the black helicopters land, they’ll be ready. They also point out that being familiar with such weapons makes it easier to ease folks into the military for our legitimate (???) forays into world politics. Of course, most of the theorists who maintain this notion seem to be white males who are a bit past the age where they might expect to be conscripted.
On the home front, there is a fairly large segment of the population who demand the right to defend themselves. They point to rampant crime, and can’t stand the idea that they might be assaulted, attacked, or victimized without the chance to defend themselves. I admit I somewhat sympathize with this idea. On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that in most areas of the country, the “rampant†crime is rather overblown, conditioned by our “if it bleeds, it leads†journalism. The chances of any particular individual being the victim of a violent crime are very small indeed, dependent of course on location and activity. Running a liquor store in the inner city tends to be rather hazardous.
The downside of having handy weapons for self-defense is that they tend to be used for impulsive activities like homicide and suicide. Domestic homicides far exceed homicides committed in the course of a robbery or other felony. In fact, suicides exceed homicides, as I recall. Some of the inflated figures for homicides pushed around by the “anti†crowd include suicide figures.
On rare occasions, you get the situation where a deranged individual decides to commit mass murder. This is greatly facilitated by having semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities, of course. Still, where there’s a will there’s a way…Charles Stuart Whitman committed his rampage with conventional firearms, as I recall. Our department traded in our politically-incorrect 13-round magazines for politically-acceptable 10-round magazines. I can reload in a tad under a second, on a good day….
The pro-gun folks promote laws that punish the illegal use of firearms, rather than ownership. Many states, including my own, have “armed criminal action†statutes that add time to convictions if a weapon is used. Unfortunately, the courts system being what it is, this tends to be used as an incentive to get confessions. “OK, Billy, if you plead to the burglary, we’ll drop the ACA charge.†Not quite the intent of the law.
We’d note that such laws have no effect whatever on the deranged. The guy who’s “going postalâ€, or the fellow who wants to commit “suicide by cop†are not going to be deterred by the legal consequences of their actions.
Do I have any concrete suggestions? Not really. We live in a society that’s very fond of our weapons, and there are, by most counts, enough for every able man, woman, and child to have their very own. (or several) We are an independent lot, and rather distrustful of authority. We have a homicide rate that’s higher than any other “industrialized†nation. (Still, better than a lot of “undeveloped†places) Confiscation or draconian control would not be popular politically, and we should have by now learned from our mistakes in attempting to control drugs and alcohol.
Maybe a bit of perspective. Our homicide rate is high, but only about half of the death rate from motor vehicle accidents, and a fraction of those caused by tobacco. The vast majority of us will never encounter violent crime, or have to defend ourselves from same.
Even in my line of work, shooting incidents are rare. I have never fired my weapon in anger. Many officers go through entire careers without using the weapon, or perhaps once or twice, and we’re on the Front Lines, as it were.
There, hope I cleared that all up….
