the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

by request

I recently pointed out on Facebook that Gabrielle Gifford, one of the more fortunate victims of Saturday's shooting spree in Arizona (since she at least survived), may be the victim of poetic justice. She has, after all, worked for and achieved a loosening of gun control laws in the past three years. A friend (Don) replied, "I'd like to hear your thoughts on gun-control laws, D. I don't know any other liberal active military...."

Don poses a good question. I don't have The Answer, but I have thoughts. They follow.

I've been pro-gun ownership most of my life. I never joined the NRA, but didn't really see a problem with what they stood for until a few years ago when I visited Europe on a regular basis and later, when I got into some online discussions about gun ownership with Europeans. I've historically defended my right to own and operate a firearm, and have made many if not all of the arguments I'll address in this post. I've changed my mind on most of them. This post is about why I did. I also hope to discover as I write what my present position is, exactly. I really haven't decided at this point whether I believe in gun control or gun confiscation.

background

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I own firearms. They were not military issued. I bought them when we were in Alabama.

I was weeks from deploying to Iraq, back in mid-2004, and was trying desperately to get the military to send me back to firearm training before I went. They refused. Since I'd had my training (which consists, in the Air Force, of half a day in class and less than 2 hours on the range) within the last 3 years, I was considered "current" by their records. I tried to express to them how little any person retains about weaponry if they do not normally use it. At the time, about all I remembered was which end to point the other direction and where the trigger was.* Yet they refused.

* Ok. Slightly more. But for all I knew, I'd be carrying my weapon with me everywhere, including to bed, and I figured a little retraining was a small price to pay to ensure I didn't shoot my foot off.

Eventually, and only because an NCO who worked for me knew someone at CATM* through her husband at Maxwell (I was at Gunter Annex, across town), I was able to get into the class. Just the class, though. Even though a fellow lieutenant (a friend of mine who was bound for Baghdad) had not shown up for his required training and CATM had an open slot on the line for the afternoon's training, they still wouldn't let me fire.

* Combat Arms Training and Maintenance

I said Fine. I grabbed lunch, then went to the guns and ammo superstore five miles off base and bought a Baretta 9mm (what the AF issues to officers), and a Glock (because it was, frankly, cool). Then I went home and made calls until I could find a reasonably close and cheap firing range.

Then I taught Mich how to use the weapons. We lived in a good neighborhood, but it abutted a *ahem* lesser neighborhood, and I wanted to know she was safe. Yes...we had Maxx, and a good dog is some of the best home protection you can get, but if you have a weapon in the house and think you may ever use it, responsible gun ownership dictates, at the very least, that you know how to use it.

FLASHBACK: I was also raised with a gun in the house, not locked up, and as far as I know, loaded at all times. I think it was a rifle. I don't know for sure. I only know that I was told in no uncertain terms that it was a real gun. It was not a toy. I was never to even touch it unless a responsible adult were supervising. So I never touched it.

Anyway...that's my personal history with guns.

Here are the common arguments you'll see and hear against gun control, in no particular order:

when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

This is a common pro-gun argument, and it's a poor one. It implies that none of us would have a fightin' chance if guns were outlawed because all the firepower would be in the hands of evildoers. This is silly, of course. The military (and our well-ordered militias) would have guns, most certainly, and law enforcement officers probably would too. That is, guns would be primarily in the hands of those of us (inlaws?) who are trained to use guns.* And more than likely, fewer outlaws would have them in the long run.

* Yeah yeah. You're thinking about my story above about having trouble requalifying. However, there are rules. The more important weapon usage is to your specialty in the military, the more often you have to re-qualify, and the more intense your weapons training.

But from what I understand of the current issues regarding firearms, this argument is attacking a straw man altogether. No one in the mainstream (to my knowledge) has advocated taking away everyone's guns. The issue is about how we can better control what is sold/traded/given to whom. This is one of the rhetorical tricks of the NRA: conflating gun confiscation with gun control. These are not the same thing, but the black-and-white thinkers in the NRA who are playing on our fears don't want you to recognize this.

Another assumption/implication of this argument is that a civilian will be safer in a confrontation with a criminal if the civilian is armed. This is similar to saying that you might die in a car accident because of your seatbelt: it occasionally is true, but in reality, you're betting--and betting hugely--against the odds.

guns don't kill people. people kill people.

*sigh*

This is a false dichotomy. That is, it implies we have to choose one or the other. People kill people, yes, but they do it far more when they use guns.

This is a fact. It is not debateable.

The farther you can stand from a human target, the more likely you are to be able to kill him. You've very unlikely to do it when you can see his eyes, the color of his hair, or even make out his general form. In practice, this means that even if you have a gun and you know how to use it, you are extremely unlikely to point it at another human being and pull the trigger even under imminent threat of death.

You probably think I'm daft. I'm not. We've convinced our soldiers through specialized training to have a high kill rate in modern warfare.* We also have weapons we can fire from great distances, which decreases their likelihood of identifying with their targets as human beings. Before modern warfare (that is, before Vietnam), only 10 to 15% of soldiers on the line would fire their weapons at the enemy, even when they were being attacked. (You all should go read Dave Grossman's seminal work On Killing. Do it now.)

* What we haven't worked out is how to deal with the resulting PTSD.

You watch TV and play video games and you think it's fairly easy to kill another human being. TV doesn't show you how much blood there will be (it can't--we censor it). TV cannot put you there, looking into the eyes of the person you are about to kill, which turns out to be an insurmountable obstacle for most. This is instinctual. Observe the animal kingdom, where it's quite rare for animals to kill another of their own species.

if someone breaks into my home, i will protect my family, even if it means i have to kill the intruder

Um...ok. If you think you'll win that particular lottery and that you'll be able to do what is more than likely against your nature when the time comes, maybe it would be worthwhile to pack a gun. It might be even more worthwhile, though, to pack your house and move to a better neighborhood. As they* say, the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. What exactly do you think are the odds that someone will break into your home while you're there? Or even while anyone is home, for that matter?

* By "they," of course, I refer to the people who say things.

It's hard to determine statistics for home invasions, but from all I've read, you have a better chance of winning Powerball than of your home being invaded (that is, broken into while it is occupied). To me, this "what if?" argument is as bad as the "ticking time bomb" argument to justify torture.

In reality, most people who have firearms will not be able to access them when they need them. Those who do are far more likely than not to fail to pull the trigger in the moment of truth. Why? The vast majority of us--better than 90%--have a powerful aversion to killing another of our species. It's that simple.

what about my second amendment rights?

Here's what the 2nd Amendment says:

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.

It's instructive to consider the situation that spawned this amendment. We* were under British rule. Specifically, George III, a monarch. We formed our own army, using any weapons people had on hand (mostly for hunting) in order to mass an army against georgie-porgie puddin' and pie.** We did this because we were being taxed more than we thought fair.*** The link between taxation and representation is, if you think about it, rhetorical more than anything else. "No taxation without representation"--and virtual representation was normal then, and in a large sense continues to be--just sounds good. I mean, it rhymes. When our brains are confronted with effective poetic devices, we willingly forfeit logical proceedings.

* By "we," I mean people I would not identify remotely with were they alive today, because they'd be eleventy-bazillion years old, would have wooden teeth, and would more than likely be selfish, manipulative, capitalist bastards.

** He is one of the possible subjects of the nursery rhyme, but no one knows for certain. (2 Nov 2012 update: We can be reasonably assured that he wasn't the subject of the rhyme, as a form of it predated George I.)

*** Then, as now, this means we were being taxed at all. In reality, we were being asked to pay far, far less than people in the British Isles paid regularly. We just got greedy. Some things never change.

So the appeal to 2nd Amendment rights is misleading. It suggests that the monarchy we revolted against is somehow equivalent to the representative democracy we now have. It also suggests that we would need to (and would) use private citizens with private weapons to form a militia against the tyranny of our own government. On this, I call bullshit. Complete, unmitigated, grade-A bullshit. It would never happen, and if it did, you would get creamed.

By the way: define "arms." There is a prevalent assumption that this general designation includes all firearms. Really? You have the right to own a tank? Grenades? Rocket launchers?

I don't think so. See, we have arbitrarily designated "arms" as anything we can reasonably carry. I don't think there is a precedent for that.

OK. Moving on. Here's an argument I made for a long time:

the point of the amendment is that we have a right to protect ourselves from our own government (or using the nra slogan: without the 2nd, we wouldn't be here in the 1st place)

Seriously. That was the original intent, right? History buffs? The populace should have the ability to rise against its government whenever that government got out of control and started taking liberties.

HAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahah *choke* *wheeze*

Yeah. We've been doing that. :roll:

By the way...I commented above about how "no taxation without representation" was just rhetoric. You're probably wondering what I mean, and if I'd like to go back to virtual representation. No, I'm not. Some is better than none. But not only was linking representation with taxation a convenient fiction we ourselves violated (slaves and women both continued to be "virtually" represented), but we don't live by this famous call to arms today. Do you not pay your taxes when you feel you aren't being represented? Right.

Our government, folks, is boiling the frog. We let them get away with unconscionable behavior all the time. What do we do? We bitch and whine. And we vote. What do you think would be necessary to make us actually form a militia and march against our own government? Seriously? You're going to be hard-pressed to find enough people that stupid.

Oh wait. Maybe not. But if they do--and I'm specifically thinking of all the gun-toting conservative nutjobs out there--it'll be a form of death by cop. You, my friends, are no match for the firepower of our government. Thanks to conservatives (more poetic justice!), we have funded and developed weapons that even your automatic weapons and grenade launchers (if you managed to get one) have no chance against. We're talking tanks, unmanned aerial vehicles with rockets, and bombs that'll lay a new carpet where your home used to be.

Now. Just how much sense does it make to say you'll defend yourself against tyranny with the pitiful weapons you can collect? If you believe even an automatic weapon in your hands will have a chance, you are probably polluting the gene pool, anyway.

No. I'm not for tyranny or against social freedoms. I'm against stupidity and suicide.

Here are some more NRA slogans, cribbed from this site:

gun control is people control

I haven't figured out how this one squares with "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Someone please explain.

fight crime - shoot back

Really?! Yeah. There was a time I thought this was a reasonable argument. There's something very "cowboy" about the American mythos, and most of us buy into it to some extent. But what is this slogan saying?

ALL criminals are ARMED! They're ALL coming after your WIVES and CHILDREN! If you aren't armed, they'll all be forced to READ THE KORAN and BOW TO AQUA BUDDA. Your dogs will be RAPED and your cats and hamsters SACRIFICED TO VISHNU. Then the criminals will brainwash your family into becoming LIBERALS and voting for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

Sorry. Got carried away. So, seriously...what are they implying here? They're implying that the only way to "fight crime" is to be a vigilante.

(The other version is worse. It's "shoot first!" This one is telling you to become a criminal.)

criminals love gun control

How stupid. Of course they don't. They hate it. "Gun control" means that criminal records are checked and guns are divvied out only to those who meet government requirements. Criminals hate this more than law-abiding gun-lovers.

crooks don't register their guns

No. They steal yours, generally by breaking into your home when you aren't there. So their guns are registered, see?

gun control is not crime control

Uh, greenhouse emissions control is not environment control, either, but it definitely helps. We can say the same for nuclear waste dumping, really. Control of that doesn't equal environment control, but if you think it doesn't matter, you volunteer to have it dumped in your back yard.

hitler registered guns then took them away

This one may be my favorite. It begins with Godwin's Law, which is a bad sign for the future of the argument already.

How do you reason with people whose worlds have no shades of grey? Either you have completely unregulated gun control (as this slogan suggests) or you'll lose your guns to a fascist government which will shortly begin interring political enemies, gays, and Jews in camps and gassing them, or something similar. Otherwise, there's no point in comparing gun-control advocates to Hitler.

Maybe people who honestly believe this just need to be shot.*

* I meant that as a surveyor symbol.

democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner, [sic] liberty is one well armed sheep contesting the vote

How cute! And how...violent. If you don't like the vote, armed insurrection is the answer!

Are you people for serious?!

on personal protection

There are more logistical problems here than most people realize. There are two general places you're likely to be attacked: in public and in your home. Regarding the "in public" possibility, I have a story:

A man has an altercation with another man and says, "You better be careful. I have a gun in my car." The other man decks him, then says, "Shoulda had it on you."

Yeah, it's a simplification, but the message has a great deal of merit. Most people will not carry their firearms everywhere they go. I know there are exceptions to this rule in some parts of the world, including the States. But it's still a fair assessment of the usual situation. You're a gun enthusiast, you have one or more nice weapons, you train with them, you're competent, and...you don't have them on you when you're assaulted.

But let's say you do, ok? Here's what most assaults will be like:

- Your attackers will be larger than you, and there will probably be more than one. People don't attack you if they think you will kick their ass.

- They will more than likely catch you by surprise. This means you will be jumped from behind, pushed, tripped, or rushed.

- Their goal is probably not to mess with you or have a conversation, but to take out any threat you may pose. This means you shouldn't expect to have a chance to draw your weapon before you're unconscious. You will be too busy trying to protect yourself from the attack (this is instinctual, by the way). Worse, you may simply freeze. Many many people do this. Attack, to most of us, is a shock, and we have a moment or two of denial, coupled with chilling fear. Again...this is instinctual.

- You will be attacked at close quarters. They will be on you before you know they are there. Your gun is worthless to you.

If you're the average gun owner, you don't even have your weapon on you. If you do, you more than likely have it on safety. Even if you don't, the gun is not a preferred weapon at close range. A knife is your friend here.

A gun can be grabbed and pulled aside. Its usefulness is very limited. Your attacker has to get it trained at you somehow. A knife is far more ubiquitous. You aren't going to grab it (unless you're an idiot), and you will do what's necessary to avoid it altogether (unless you're an idiot). Also, most people don't see knives as being quite as deadly as guns,* so you are more likely to use a knife in your own defense.

* Knives are far more deadly, in most cases. You are prone to slash at your assailant, as stabbing runs counter to your instincts, too. You will draw a lot of blood even from surface wounds, and the person is more likely to go into shock from a knife attack than from a gunshot wound.

Knives are less likely to be on safety or to jam, too.

What happens if someone attacks you in your home? Once again, you're very unlikely to have your weapon on you or accessible when you need it. Let's say you do, though. You're that guy that carries even at home. You have that loaded, unlocked weapon on your hip all the time and sleep with it under your pillow.

I hope you can pull the trigger if you win that lotto. I do. And I hope you don't screw up and shoot someone you love accidentally. And I hope you can live with yourself afterward. More than likely, you'll fail one or more of these.

It's easy to say you'll take out someone before that someone takes out you, because that seems so logical. However, it clashes with our innate, emotional resistance to killing another human being (or trying to). Most gun owners act all tough. Maybe they truly are. I doubt it, though. The same phenomenon is rife in the military, particularly the Army and Marines, where hundreds of thousands of badass punks think it's easy to kill. So good luck with that.

You're probably wondering what I do believe in now. At the very least, I believe the power and number of weapons any person can collect should be severely limited. Nobody needs a stockpile, particularly one large enough to lose track of. We don't need any automatic weapons on the market. None. People with violent convictions should not be able to get guns legally.

Where do I stand? I'm for gun control, which means confiscation of weapons that are not reasonable for hunting or home defense, but not confiscation of all guns.

d