Thursday, January 31, 2013

The Right to Bear 8 Arms: what are you, an octopus?

What is usually assumed when I tell people that I majored in Peace and Conflict studies in undergrad and grad school, is that I am a pacifist. (Actually, lots of assumptions are made ie. feminist, anarchist, loves Birkenstocks, vegetarian, loves The Greatful Dead, hates country music, etc... But I digress.) The term 'pacifism' ranges on a spectrum from the promotion of resolving conflict through peaceful means to a belief in complete abstinence from violence, even for self defense. From my experience in somewhat heated political debates, 'pacifist' is often used as a derogatory term attempting to insult us 'liberal, dove-loving, peace-sign waving, hairy armpitted hippies', as though calling someone a 'pacifist' would negate any rational or logical argument they might have. I guess this is similar to calling someone a 'War Monger', which I may have done in my angsty teens, thinking that I had dominated an argument from the use of that single term alone. In truth, although I advocate for peaceful resolutions to geopolitical conflict, I would consider myself a moderate pacifist. I do think that violence is sometimes (but rarely) a necessary means to achieve peace, when all other diplomatic attempts have been exhausted, or if a group of people are being tyrannically oppressed. I think that global foreign policy is much too hasty in deeming military action as the most effective means of resolving conflict, and I definitely believe a major paradigm shift is needed in the way world politics deal with conflict. Still, it is my personal belief that there are instances when violence is a necessary evil. Phew. That was hard for me to write.

So, why the lengthy preface to a blog post about gun control? Well, I just wanted to state my stance on nonviolence before delving into my opinion on the subject of guns, just so you don't assume that I'm someone who wouldn't roundhouse kick a sexual predator in the face. Because I would. So hard. I'd even sucker punch a kidnapper in the jewels, and not even feel bad about it. And just so you know, Rivers sleeps with a machete under the bed. So there.

That being said, let me tell you about my views on gun control, since it's a topic that's been blowing up the social media sphere like Walter White in an underground meth lab. ( Didn't get that joke? No? Breaking Bad, anyone? Season 3? No, I guess that show is a little too rated R for my target audience...)

The major argument I've heard in opposition to tighter gun control laws is the good old 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America written in 1791, deeming that the people of America have the right to "keep and bear arms". Before dissecting the reasoning behind the amendment, let's take a look at the mechanics of a 1791 gun...

For starters, a 1791 gun was a single-fire weapon that needed to be reloaded through the muzzle after each shot. They had horrible aim, often misfired and did not have even close to the velocity or range that a modern firearm possesses. In other words, every shot had to count. People bearing arms back in 1791 were able to hit one target at a time (if they were 'lucky') with vast intervals of time in between shots, and were often stabbed or wrestled to the ground while trying to reload their musket in battle. In actuality, most militia men relied on more old school 'arms', like bayonettes, swords, sabres and bows. Modern assault rifles, on the other hand, have the ability to take down crowds of people in a matter of seconds with precision and ease, as we have regrettably learned through the recent onslaught of mass shootings plaguing the United States. As opposed to the bearer of a cumbersome musket who could conceivably be 'taken down' by an unarmed opponent, citizens bearing assault rifles have virtually no opposition. I doubt that the founding fathers could even fathom such destructive weapons when they bestowed upon the People the right to bear arms. If the arms debate was pitted around how many crossbows, cannons and Excalibur swords a citizen could posses, I think I would be more understanding of the opposing argument. But the fact that Americans are up in arms (pun) about the possibility of losing their semi-automatic assault rifles (which are only meant for one thing-killing multiple people in a short amount of time) baffles me.

The 2nd amendment was ratified in order to ensure that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In essence, the right to bear arms was ratified as a safeguard against tyrannical rule, so that if the People felt their government was oppressive, they would be adequately armed for rebellion. Can you imagine what would happen if a group of extra-governmental militia people banded together to take out the president? Yeah, I'm pretty sure we call that terrorism, and there's actually a whole war going on to try and stop that, if ya didn't know. I think we can all agree that the original reason behind the right to bear arms is outdated. Citizen-organized militias are virtually illegal and I'd be willing to bet that any modern-day revolution would be quashed and quickly marked as treason. As a result, in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that citizens unaffiliated with militias could still maintain their right to bear arms. In reality, it is no longer the 2nd amendment that is upholding this inalienable right to own guns (how many people do you know as part of a militia?). So let's not use that as an argument, k?

All this being said, I have to be clear that I am not completely opposed to gun ownership. I think that if having a handgun in your house makes you feel safer, and you've passed an extensive background check along with proper gun wielding and safety training, why not? Like I said, we sleep with a machete under our bed. If you like venison and a sweet deerskin loincloth, why not have a hunting rifle in your shed? Sure. No problem. What I can't understand is the debate over the right to own a semi-automatic assault weapon, or an arsenal of guns at that. A survey conducted by the Injury Prevention center at the US National Library of Medicine journal showed that gun owners own an average of 7.9 guns each. Please tell me the point of owning 8 guns. Unless you're an octopus,or have been watching too much Walking Dead and are preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse, I really don't get it.

Since 1982, there have been over 60 mass shootings in the United States, and, according to a recent study by Mother Jones magazine, most of the shooters obtained their weapons legally. The weapons used were predominantly assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns. I have heard the pro-gun argument that if a potential victim of a mass shooting had been armed, he or she could have shot the perpetrator before too many lives were lost. But as this study shows, there have been zero mass shootings stopped by armed civilians, although some victims were armed at the time of the shooting.

I guess my point in writing this blog is my ever present message of moderation and balance. I see no problem with a law-abiding citizen having a safely stored handgun in their home to protect against intruders. I know a lot of people whose minds are put at ease going to bed at night knowing that they have a weapon to protect them. But what I really can't wrap my mind around is how people can rationally argue the 'right' to own their own personal stockpile of assault weapons, or those who feel they're living under a communist government when they see a sign outside a store that reads "No Weapons Allowed".

There are tons of other disarming (pun) statistics that I could use in this post, but I don't want to bore you. Here are some links to the studies I've referenced, just so you know I'm not just pulling these statistics from thin air.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

And I'd really be interested to hear your opinion on the subject. So please, go ahead. Shoot.

5 comments:

  1. Great article Steph! Very interesting.

    I don't have any guns myself, though I've handled a few in the last year. My brother in law has at least 6. Rifles, shotguns, and so on. They're always locked away in a safe when not in use. He uses them for sport, and hunting — he would of course use them for self defense if necessary. He's a smart guy, and currently works as a prison guard.

    So I guess what I'm saying is I don't see a problem with someone owning 8 guns. Yeah, that's a lot, and I don't ever see myself having that sort of collection, but for someone who actively hunts, and/or participates in related sport or recreation (e.g., clay pigeon/target shooting) then it's no different than a mechanic's toolbox, or a chef's set of knives.

    I think the problem is, and always will be with the individual. As inferred, my brother in law is a good trustworthy man (also a member of the church, for what it's worth) and I'm not scared by his gun ownership. Swap him for a paranoid / neurotic conspiracy theorist, and well, that's a different story.

    Anyway, I don't know what should be done about the terrible tragedies we've seen over the last few years. I'm not entirely convinced that tighter gun laws will make a noticeable difference. I think it may be a deeper societal issue. But perhaps only time and more experience will tell.

    Thanks again for writing this!

    PS. some clarification on the term 'assault weapon' can be found here: http://www.assaultweapon.info -- undoubtedly with a pro-gun spin, but I don't doubt the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a long-time gun owner and history major i really enjoyed your breakdown of the 2nd amendment and your comparison/contrast of modern firearms to those of the late 18th century. As somebody who grew up spending most of their summers on the family ranch in Montana shooting targets and critters, i have to admit that i am unashamedly fond of guns. I owned a small .22 caliber handgun up until a few months ago when i gave it to my sister-in-law for home security and peace of mind after she found a convicted sex offender and drug addict hiding in the same backyard where her four children play. While i have never been accused of being a war monger, i certainly have never been mistaken for a pacifist either.

    The Mother Jones study is incorrect if it reports that zero mass shootings have been prevented by armed civilians. I will be happy to point you to some of the under-reported incidents where that's precisely what happened. For starters, check out this link:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2969057/posts

    That in mind, it is important to note that in all such cases (at least in every one i have come across) the armed citizens were able to successfully and immediately halt the perpetrators' criminal, homicidal acts with a simple handgun. These legally armed citizens did not need assault rifles to put a stop to the horrendous crimes these sickos intended to commit.

    So although i admittedly expected to disagree with your views from the start due to my own biases, and i discount the findings of the study you cited, i am still forced to agree with your conclusion. I cannot think of a reasonable justification for protecting people's rights to own anything as destructive as an assault rifle. They've never proven useful or effective for home defense or criminal prevention in the hands of our citizenry. Thank you for the thought-provoking article and the invitation to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's so good to read from you again! Sigh.
    Now if only you could be the boss of our country. Ever considered politics?
    Also, how do you have so much self control having to deal with gross-mega-ego-faces on your comments all the time? I respect you for that. Seriously.
    LOVE

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steph, I agree with you for the most part and your writing is so good. So good it almost makes me liberal...

    I happen to be a gun enthusiast. I grew up shooting hundreds of different guns of all types. It may seem silly to you, but some of my fondest, and some of my only memories I have of my father are of me and him shooting together. Happiest days of my childhood. I want to shoot with my kids. I value it.

    My biggest thing with this though (maybe its some repressed childhood feelings..haha) is that I feel like I'm not trusted. I feel like the government is telling me, "You suck and can't be trusted. You aren't good enough to have this. You would mess everything up. You're a child." To a much smaller degree, its similar to gay marriage. The Government telling individuals their relationships aren't held to the same standard as a heterosexual couple is comparable to the government telling me owning guns (assault rifles and all) isn't a valuable recreational activity. So although the issue at hand don't have the same implications and certainly not the emotional ties, it is a similar form of suppression.

    So to answer your inquiry about why you need 8 guns (unless you're an octopus), you don't. But I WANT 8 guns, because its a recreational activity I enjoy and value. Does Rivers or I NEED to run thousands of miles? No, but we enjoy it and it brings us fulfillment. I think a lot can be learned from responsible care and possession of guns. Whether you or the government agree, I have learned and have valued recreational shooting, some of which was shooting semi-auto and illegal fully auto guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (A stat that I would use, in place of the "civilians don't kill shooters" idea is the stats on the victims of crossfire from volunteer vigilantes.)

    ReplyDelete