I have hesitated to express an opinion in
the "gun regulation debate" which has spurred much fiery rhetoric
lately. The reason is that I can agree with both arguments and find myself
somewhere in the middle (ah, that untenable centrist position again). As is
usually the case when we the citizens call upon our central authority to enact
legislation intended to control the behavior of society, the devil is in the
details!
At first glance it is easy for me to agree that there is no compelling need for any individual in American society to possess a simi automatic military style high power weapon with a high capacity magazine. I certainly don't need one, nor do I want to own one, however as a shooting enthusiast I can understand the thrill and enjoyment in shooting one (at the proper firing range with proper safety protocol of course).
As a sportsman, I do enjoy hunting and fishing, and my favorite is bird hunting, both upland, and waterfowl. The preferred weapon for this is a large gauge (12 G) shotgun, which thus far does not seem to be in the line of fire with regard to gun control and of which I own several. Now, I have absolutely no problem if I am required to undergo a background check whenever I want to purchase a new shotgun in the interest of public safety and to assure society that I am not a nut case. I would like to point out however that this will cost lots of money, create a new level of government bureaucracy, and not really address any of the problems germane to this argument since I am a responsible gun user. On the other hand, I often buy large quantities of shotgun shells for practice and skeet shooting. These are low power, small shot loads used expressly for practice and are far less expensive than "game loads". I buy many cases at a time, because there is a quantity discount and we often shoot hundreds of rounds at a time, which is why it is called "practice". If I were subject to a background check every time I were to purchase a large quantity of shells.....well, that would be simply ludicrous and offensive. This is but one small example of how difficult it is to draw a reasonable line, and how well intended action by a central authority often misses the mark.
My real concern, is not with the firearms themselves, but with two larger pictures, which seem to be at the crux of this debate: the first being that our society has taken violence, warfare, fighting, and the use of firearms out of reality, and placed them in a virtual computer world where one can "play" countless hours immersed in violent action, with unlimited firing of virtual firearms with absolutely no consequence. I have no empirical data regarding the effects of this on our youth in society today, but I have to believe, it must have an effect on behavior at some level. After all, what else has changed in recent years? The same weapons have been available for 40 years, but there seems to be a rash of senseless violence and mass shootings, perpetrated by young people in the last ten years or so.
Being a baby boomer, I am one generation away from a time when learning to shoot and handle a gun as well as learning to ride and handle a house were required skills for every boy to learn. Both skills required practice, knowledge and were passed from father to son for generations. I was fortunate to have been taught now to safely use a gun, how to respect and properly maintain a gun, and I was taught how to hunt, and consume what I kill. We did not need to hunt to survive, those days being long past, but my father taught me the proper use of a firearm as a tool, just as it had been taught to him. This transfer of skill and knowledge has ended for the most part at my generation, and unfortunately seems to be replaced with an ability to "pretend to fight" and "kill and die" in a virtual world that gets more realistic every day. It does make one wonder, if the children who have perpetrated some of these useless acts of violence, have somehow lost the ability to truly discern reality from fantasy. Unknowingly, our society through computer games, television, and movies has depersonalized violence, and replaced what I regard as a useful tool for protection and survival, with a fantasy- land weapon used for entertainment. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it won't be easy and it won't be overnight and it is certainly not the "FAULT" of any one group of people. Especially those like me who own, properly use, and respect firearms and try to teach responsibility and safety.
I guess that my summery of this point is this: While, measures to limit availability of certain kinds of weapons and enact reasonable gun controls, is a good thing, I regard them as stop-gap measures that do not adequately address the underlying issue, which is a far deeper and harder problem for us as a peaceful society to recognize much less deal with.
The second "big picture" I refer to is this: What is the intended purpose of the second amendment to the constitution and our right to bear arms? I have heard the argument that "the state of the art weapon" at the time the second amendment was written was a mussel loaded single shot musket. But then, that is what the military used as well, so basically the average Joe carried around a weapon that was equal to or better than that used by solders at the time. I personally think it comes down to this: does the second amendment exist for us to have firearms to defend ourselves from one another and to hunt game for sustenance or sport? Or, does it exist in order for our citizenship to defend itself against the possibility of a government obtaining too much central power, too much central authority, or becoming too oppressive? The second amendment does also include the right to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State". Now, it is up to the interpreter as to whether a well regulated Militia and “the right to bear arms" was intended for "defense of" or "against" the central government, but it is no secret that the founding fathers harbored a deep suspicion of central power and authority. In fact, many checks and balances were placed within our system of government to prevent too much central power.
I think we can all agree that technology in military weaponry has rendered this question rather moot. If our military were to be used by our federal government to control or oppress its citizens, I doubt it would make much difference how many folks owned 30 shot simi-auto M4s. Does that mean we should all be allowed to possess RPG launchers and have Cruise missiles in our basements? I don't think so!
I guess it comes down to this: THINGS CHANGE !!!. Whatever the original intent was within the second amendment does not matter because evolution in technology has rendered it useless. We can no more defend ourselves from military oppression by our own government using M4s, M16s, and Gloc 9mms than we could using muskets. So....what is the purpose TODAY? If it is to hunt, shoot for sport, collect, defend ones self against intruders, and enjoy the age old skill of marksmanship, I would have to conclude that a large capacity, military style weapon is not a necessity.
Now that I have weighed in on the issue and have considered several points of view, I still find myself in the middle. My naive hope is for personal responsibility, proper education of our children and an overall shift in our society away from the glorification of violence. My realistic side says that extreme views on both sides of the issue will drown out any reasonable, pragmatic dialog and we will end up being reactive instead of proactive. We will end up with some legislation that annoys gun owners, pisses off anti-gun activists, and really does not effectually accomplish anything. I guess I am being a pessimist but history seems to be on my side.
At first glance it is easy for me to agree that there is no compelling need for any individual in American society to possess a simi automatic military style high power weapon with a high capacity magazine. I certainly don't need one, nor do I want to own one, however as a shooting enthusiast I can understand the thrill and enjoyment in shooting one (at the proper firing range with proper safety protocol of course).
As a sportsman, I do enjoy hunting and fishing, and my favorite is bird hunting, both upland, and waterfowl. The preferred weapon for this is a large gauge (12 G) shotgun, which thus far does not seem to be in the line of fire with regard to gun control and of which I own several. Now, I have absolutely no problem if I am required to undergo a background check whenever I want to purchase a new shotgun in the interest of public safety and to assure society that I am not a nut case. I would like to point out however that this will cost lots of money, create a new level of government bureaucracy, and not really address any of the problems germane to this argument since I am a responsible gun user. On the other hand, I often buy large quantities of shotgun shells for practice and skeet shooting. These are low power, small shot loads used expressly for practice and are far less expensive than "game loads". I buy many cases at a time, because there is a quantity discount and we often shoot hundreds of rounds at a time, which is why it is called "practice". If I were subject to a background check every time I were to purchase a large quantity of shells.....well, that would be simply ludicrous and offensive. This is but one small example of how difficult it is to draw a reasonable line, and how well intended action by a central authority often misses the mark.
My real concern, is not with the firearms themselves, but with two larger pictures, which seem to be at the crux of this debate: the first being that our society has taken violence, warfare, fighting, and the use of firearms out of reality, and placed them in a virtual computer world where one can "play" countless hours immersed in violent action, with unlimited firing of virtual firearms with absolutely no consequence. I have no empirical data regarding the effects of this on our youth in society today, but I have to believe, it must have an effect on behavior at some level. After all, what else has changed in recent years? The same weapons have been available for 40 years, but there seems to be a rash of senseless violence and mass shootings, perpetrated by young people in the last ten years or so.
Being a baby boomer, I am one generation away from a time when learning to shoot and handle a gun as well as learning to ride and handle a house were required skills for every boy to learn. Both skills required practice, knowledge and were passed from father to son for generations. I was fortunate to have been taught now to safely use a gun, how to respect and properly maintain a gun, and I was taught how to hunt, and consume what I kill. We did not need to hunt to survive, those days being long past, but my father taught me the proper use of a firearm as a tool, just as it had been taught to him. This transfer of skill and knowledge has ended for the most part at my generation, and unfortunately seems to be replaced with an ability to "pretend to fight" and "kill and die" in a virtual world that gets more realistic every day. It does make one wonder, if the children who have perpetrated some of these useless acts of violence, have somehow lost the ability to truly discern reality from fantasy. Unknowingly, our society through computer games, television, and movies has depersonalized violence, and replaced what I regard as a useful tool for protection and survival, with a fantasy- land weapon used for entertainment. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it won't be easy and it won't be overnight and it is certainly not the "FAULT" of any one group of people. Especially those like me who own, properly use, and respect firearms and try to teach responsibility and safety.
I guess that my summery of this point is this: While, measures to limit availability of certain kinds of weapons and enact reasonable gun controls, is a good thing, I regard them as stop-gap measures that do not adequately address the underlying issue, which is a far deeper and harder problem for us as a peaceful society to recognize much less deal with.
The second "big picture" I refer to is this: What is the intended purpose of the second amendment to the constitution and our right to bear arms? I have heard the argument that "the state of the art weapon" at the time the second amendment was written was a mussel loaded single shot musket. But then, that is what the military used as well, so basically the average Joe carried around a weapon that was equal to or better than that used by solders at the time. I personally think it comes down to this: does the second amendment exist for us to have firearms to defend ourselves from one another and to hunt game for sustenance or sport? Or, does it exist in order for our citizenship to defend itself against the possibility of a government obtaining too much central power, too much central authority, or becoming too oppressive? The second amendment does also include the right to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State". Now, it is up to the interpreter as to whether a well regulated Militia and “the right to bear arms" was intended for "defense of" or "against" the central government, but it is no secret that the founding fathers harbored a deep suspicion of central power and authority. In fact, many checks and balances were placed within our system of government to prevent too much central power.
I think we can all agree that technology in military weaponry has rendered this question rather moot. If our military were to be used by our federal government to control or oppress its citizens, I doubt it would make much difference how many folks owned 30 shot simi-auto M4s. Does that mean we should all be allowed to possess RPG launchers and have Cruise missiles in our basements? I don't think so!
I guess it comes down to this: THINGS CHANGE !!!. Whatever the original intent was within the second amendment does not matter because evolution in technology has rendered it useless. We can no more defend ourselves from military oppression by our own government using M4s, M16s, and Gloc 9mms than we could using muskets. So....what is the purpose TODAY? If it is to hunt, shoot for sport, collect, defend ones self against intruders, and enjoy the age old skill of marksmanship, I would have to conclude that a large capacity, military style weapon is not a necessity.
Now that I have weighed in on the issue and have considered several points of view, I still find myself in the middle. My naive hope is for personal responsibility, proper education of our children and an overall shift in our society away from the glorification of violence. My realistic side says that extreme views on both sides of the issue will drown out any reasonable, pragmatic dialog and we will end up being reactive instead of proactive. We will end up with some legislation that annoys gun owners, pisses off anti-gun activists, and really does not effectually accomplish anything. I guess I am being a pessimist but history seems to be on my side.
No comments:
Post a Comment