About That Gun Thing...

A few weeks back I was out to lunch with a friend, when I happened to look out the window and see a man walking by with a large rifle slung over his shoulder.  It gave me pause...partly because it's not often that you see people walking around town with hunting rifles in full view, and partly because the man was right across the street from the local Planned Parenthood.  I couldn't help but hold my breath for a few seconds and watch his every move, while simultaneously thinking about ducking for cover under the table.  The man got into his pickup and drove away...no harm, no foul, nothing to see here folks.  But it got me thinking about the gun culture that we have here in the United States.

I didn't grow up with guns.  My dad had guns, and I knew they were kept somewhere in the house, but I had no interest in them and therefore never really went looking for them.  When I was 13, my dad had my brother and I take a firearm safety class.  After a few sessions of classroom education, we got to go to the local gun range for a field test to see what we had learned, what we hadn't, and what we needed to work on.  That class was the second time in my life that I had ever held or shot a gun.  The first time was on a fishing trip in northern Minnesota at my dad's friend's cabin...I got to shoot at a pie plate hanging in a tree...it's doubtful that I hit it...or anything for that matter.  So the field test...it was fun to get out and shoot the gun, to see my accuracy with the targets.  I was actually excited at the idea of maybe going hunting, or of going to the shooting range.  Dad was completely against the idea of me going anywhere with a gun.  I remember being really confused at the time as to why he had wanted to me to take the firearm safety class in the first place, if his intention all along was to not let me go out and shoot.  I don't think I've ever asked him about that...I quickly got over it and I guess at over 20+ years later, it doesn't matter all that much, really.

I didn't shoot another gun until I was 32 years old, and oddly enough, it was an assault rifle.  It was a lot of fun...and terrifying, and made me a bit nauseated.  I immediately recognized the power in that weapon, and to be completely honest, it was very overwhelming.  Weird to think that I went almost 20 years without shooting a gun, given how prevalent they are these days and how many people I know who own them.  I enjoy shooting guns, but they're still just not terribly interesting to me.  And truth be told, they're a little frightening.  Perhaps if I interacted with guns on a regular basis I'd be more comfortable with them, but even then...I just don't know.  I don't think having a gun would improve my quality of life, and if anything, it would make me more paranoid about the world around me.  Of course, there are certain situations where I think I would like to have one...camping out in the middle of the woods, far from civilization and people to help, but I have it in my head that I'd want it to defend myself from animals (bears...I'm completely and irrationally terrified of bears), not from other people.

In having random conversations with friends who are gun owners, the opinions are rather mixed in whether or not they think more regulation would stop the spread of gun violence.  Some say guns should be a free-market item and that it's no one's business who owns them and who doesn't.  Like buying a pair of shoes...no one's business but mine.  Some of my friends absolutely think there needs to be more screening, more education, and more restrictions on who can buy guns, how many they can have, and what types of guns and ammunition are available to the general public.  They equate owning a gun almost the same way you treat owning a car...that a person should have to take classes, get a license, and show proof of insurance/ownership.  The huge problem with that, however, is that a portion of gun violence is committed at the hands of people using unregistered or illegally obtained weapons.  All the regulation in the country isn't going to stop that.  It's what the pro-gun sect has been saying all along...we don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem.

So...if changing the laws isn't going to stop the spread of gun violence, what will?  In thinking about it, what we need is a culture-shift.  Why is it that people feel safer with a gun?  Of all the people I know who own guns, not one of them has actually had to defend themselves or their property with a gun (at least not that I'm aware of).  And I'm not talking about having a gun near the door for just-in-case...I'm talking about actually pulling a gun on a person with the very real intention of shooting them...sighted down the scope, safety off, finger on the trigger sort of intention.  In talking with these people about their guns and personal safety, you'd think they were under constant threat of being robbed, mugged, or murdered...and while I don't personally see it, the threats seem very real for them.  It seems as though most of them are under the impression that it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it.  Makes sense, but one should probably establish the reality of need versus the perception of need.  And in going along with that, what is adequate protection, and what is just plain excess?  Is there such a thing as excess when you're talking about defending yourself?  Are multiple guns better than one?  Most people only have two hands, and shooting two handed is horribly inaccurate unless the person you're shooting is standing directly in front of you at close range...and if they're standing directly in front of you at close range, you probably only need one gun anyway.   

It would seem that assault rifles are the pit bulls of the gun world...they're a gun just like any other gun, but have the potential to be more deadly when not in the hands of educated, responsible individuals.  If there's any gun ideology that I struggle with, it's the assault rifle.  Assault rifles are designed to take out multiple people in a short period of time over a safe distance.  Perfect application of the assault rifle is soldiers with boots on the ground in hostile territory during wartime.  I personally just don't understand why a civilian needs an assault rifle.  And it's not about need.  I don't think any civilian in America needs an assault rifle.  And if a civilian does feel they need an assault rifle, what exactly do they need it for?  Shooting mass quantities of people?  What people?  Who are these rogue bands of people that we need assault rifles to defend ourselves against?  As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong, there hasn't been a case for an assault-style shoot-out on American soil since the Civil War.  Some people have claimed that they need assault rifles to defend themselves should our military turn on us.  I've got news for you...if our military turns on us to the point that they're hunting us down, we might as well turn our guns on ourselves because we're already dead.  I'm not saying that we should just give up our guns because defending ourselves is pointless, but honestly...against our own military?  We're ants under a boot heel.  So...if there's really no point in defending ourselves with assault rifles against our own military, who does that leave?          

We are living in a fear-based society that has us under the impression that the only way we can feel safe anymore is to have a gun strapped to our hip.  Is our world really that terrible that every time we leave the house we are in imminent danger of being attacked?  Or that we are going to stumble upon a violent situation and intervene with our little six-shooter and save the day?  Out of all the people I know who own a gun, how many are actually proficient enough, or brave enough to step up and shoot someone who poses an actual threat?  Basic survival instincts would have the majority of people running away from the shooters, not towards them.  If you're going to fight firepower with firepower, you best believe that the minute you identify yourself as a good guy with a gun, you will ultimately be the next target.  So...you have to make damn sure you're a good shot and take the shooter out before he or she takes you out.  Not that I'm saying the best course of action would be to hide out and hope it all passes, but it takes a very specific frame of mind to kill another human being, even when under threat.  Most gun owners I know speak flippantly as though they would have no problem killing another person who posed a threat...but I wonder about that...I really do.  These are people who live a safe existence in safe neighborhoods in or near safe cities where crime is relatively low...and again, to my knowledge, have never needed to use a gun to defend themselves.  And to take it one step further...what sort of outlook does someone have to have on humanity to believe that they need a gun to protect themselves from the world at large?  How many people out there truly mean to cause us harm on a daily basis?  Is it truly enough to necessitate wearing a gun everywhere?  Do guns actually make us safer, or do they just make us feel safer?

It's interesting to watch videos of lay people put in those school-shooting simulations with paintball guns.  In almost every situation, the lay person either shoots another civilian, or immediately gets shot themselves.  They just don't stand a chance, and that makes perfect sense.  In order to stand a chance, a lay person would have to be in defense-mode 24/7, everywhere they went.  Scanning the crowd, scanning the perimeter, operating with a knowledge of human behavior and at a level of alertness that rivals our own police officers.  It's just not humanly possible to be prepared for a mass-shooting.  In every major shooting with multiple casualties that we've had in our country in the last 5 years, there had to have been a least one person present who was proficient with a gun, but they either didn't have their gun on them (due to restrictions on where we can and can't have our guns) or they were caught completely unawares.  It's not possible to be on high-alert for shooters all the time.  And who in the world would want to be?  If our country gets to that point, I'm really not sure I want to be here for that, although there are people who think we're already there.  How awful to live in such a state of fear all the time.  The sad thing is, I'm sure there are a significant number of people in this country who operate under that state of fear most of the time.  That seems like a miserable existence, but maybe having a gun helps them deal with that level of fear and uncertainly...different strokes for different folks, I guess.  

I was walking to work with Simon the other day, and there's a stretch of woods between our place and the hospital.  Now that the days are shorter, we walk that particular stretch in the dark.  Everything seems scarier in the dark, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it actually is...a flashlight does wonders.  I found myself thinking randomly about what would happen if someone were hiding out in the woods and tried to attack me as I was walking by.  For one, I'd be caught completely unawares...unless they were loud and unwieldy, which is entirely possible, but for the purpose of speculation, we'll assume that the would-be attacker is quiet.  Suppose I did have a gun.  I most likely wouldn't walk to work with it in my hand, and I probably wouldn't have it strapped to my thigh.  If was I wearing it at all, it would probably be in a holster or in my backpack.  Given that I wear a coat, the gun would be zipped up in my coat, and the gun in the backpack would be completely inaccessible.  A gun is only as useful as your accessibility to it.  A person with the intention of doing me harm is not going to give me time to defend myself.  In this particular instance, a gun wouldn't help me.  A knife in my hand would probably be a better option, truth be told.  Unless it is a situation like that sniper who was running around D.C. all those years ago, a person meaning to do me harm is going to get up close and personal, not try to take me out from afar.

In light of the recent high-profile shootings, I'd like to just mention a few things that stuck out to me.  I'll start with the Planned Parenthood shooting, since that one happened first.  I can't help but be disgusted about all the times that Robert Dear fell through the cracks prior to his rampage at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood.  This man had a history of violence, including rape, assault, and a previous attack at a different Planned Parenthood.  This wasn't his first rodeo, nor was this a random act of violence committed by a religious zealot.  Is he mentally ill?  Almost certainly.  Does that change the outcome?  Not a bit.  But what could have changed the outcome is if more of his victims had followed through with pressing charges against him, not to mention if the courts hadn't dismissed the charges that actually had been filed.  This man assaulted his second and third wives, not to mention he stalked, raped, and assaulted a woman that he knew from a department store (she pressed charges, but they were dismissed when it was revealed that she was moving out of state after the incident occurred...wtf??).  He had vandalized a Planned Parenthood in South Carolina, and had even been picked up for having an illegal firearm.  How is it that a person displaying this sort of behavior was not behind bars?  How many others just like him are wandering the streets of our country, potentially plotting acts of violence and just waiting for the right time to carry them to fruition?  This whole Planned Parenthood shootout probably could have been prevented if our justice system would have taken care of him years ago when he displayed such violent behavior.  It sickens me to think of how awful a person he was before he stepped into that Planned Parenthood, that our justice system allows criminals like him to walk the streets the among us, and gives them the opportunity to cause harm.  That whole phrase, "when you see something, say something," that became so popular after 9/11 absolutely doesn't work if our justice system isn't going to be 100% behind it.

Kind of the same situation with the shooting in San Bernardino.  According to one of the articles I read, Tashfeen Malik, the woman shooter,  had been posting extremist views on her Facebook page months before the shooting took place.  Her family and friends were concerned.  But did anyone say anything?  And if so, what action was taken?  None, it would seem.  And this is where surveillance comes in.  Had someone said something regarding an extremist post Facebook, how is one to know if it is serious or not?  If it is a threat or not?  I've seen posts on Black Lives Matter Facebook pages where white people were advocating violence against black people, or the immediate deportation of all black people to Africa.  Is that not kind of the same zealot behavior?  What about Christian posts calling for the torture and death of abortionists, or those wonderful Westboro Baptist posts condemning fallen soldiers to hell for the apparent sinful behavior of our nation's homosexual population?  At what point does religious zealotism get to the point that the authorities need to sit up and take notice?  The shooting in San Bernardino is a perfect example of how gun laws do not prevent gun violence.  All the weapons and ammunition used in the attack were obtained legally.    Although, admittedly, the assault weapons were purchased legally by someone else and then transferred illegally to them, but the initial purchase was completely legal (the original purchaser is probably screwed...and rightfully so...did he not question why his friends would want to borrow his assault rifles?  It's one thing to go shooting with your friends and let them use your guns in your presence...it's quite another to just hand them over and let them do with the guns what they please).  And then there's the ammunition...bullets that are designed to go through walls, to go through body armor and kevlar vests.  Why is ammunition of this sort available to the general public?  What exactly is a person hoping to shoot with ammunition like that?  Short answer...people.  I suppose you could hunt animals with it, but that seems a bit much.  It would seem as though guns of that nature combined with the type of ammunition used could only point to a person trying to cause as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible.

I truly am trying to be as even-handed as possible with this post...for the most part, I don't have a problem with guns.  Guns are fun to shoot, I get it.  I also get that if you're someone who hunts, a gun is pretty necessary.  If someone were to break into your house, you have a better chance to getting the intruder to leave or protecting yourself if you have a gun (a really big dog might also suffice).  I get all that, and for the most part, I don't see anything wrong with it.  I have a lot of friends who own guns who are responsible citizens who have no intention of using their guns for anything but hunting, recreation, and in the event of self-defense.  I probably have double that number of friends who have guns who just don't talk about them.  In fact, I would probably be 99% accurate if I were to state that I have more friends and family who own guns than friends and family who don't.  I would probably also be accurate in stating that 99% of them have never used their guns in self-defense from other people (I do have friends/family who have shot coyotes and such who were attacking their dogs, chickens, etc).  That's not to say that they never will need to defend themselves from other people, just that they haven't yet.  I hope they never need to use them for self-defense, and that their guns just sit in their cabinets or under their beds collecting dust for their entire lives, giving them a sense of well-being and safety that people without guns just don't seem to need.  Maybe people without guns are just ignorant to the threats of the world around them.  I guess time will tell, won't it?         

Would You Give Up Your Seat?

On a recent drive to Phoenix, Simon and I were chatting about this, that, and the other thing.  It's a 2-hour minimum drive, so we have plenty of time to talk about all manner of things.  Sometimes our conversations are silly, sometimes they are serious, but frequently, they're completely random. 

On this particular drive, I posed the question to Simon: If you were on the Titanic and you were offered a spot in a lifeboat, would you give that spot up for a child?  Simon, ever the pragmatist, simply stated that he would not give up his seat, but that he would hold the child in his lap, ensuring that both of them survived.  Of course he finds a way to thwart the problem with physics.  Okay, so what if the child was a teenager and too big for a lap.  No dodging this one.  He stated that he probably wouldn't give up his seat for a teenager.  What if it was a teenager he knew?  He thought for a moment, and then said that yes, he would give up his seat for a teenager that he knew.  I asked him how it was different to give up his seat for a teenager he knew versus a teenager that he didn't know.  He thought about it again for a moment, and then stated in all reality, he would give up his seat for a teenager that he didn't know as well. 

We continued the conversation.  Would he give up his seat for a woman?  He said that he would give up his seat for a woman if she was the mother of other children in the boat.  A single woman?  No.  He did say that he would give up his seat for me, and which point I stated that if he was going down with the boat, I was going down with him.  He told me that was silly; I told him that I wouldn't want to survive something that traumatic without him.  He said that Rose survived the sinking of the Titanic and did just fine without Jack.  In reference to the movie, Simon also stated that if we went down together, he would absolutely find a way for both of us to fit on a floating piece of wood together.  He chastised Rose and Jack for not being able to do it, and said that Jack didn't need to die at all.

The questions then turned to me.  Would I give up my seat for a child?  I had thought about this situation randomly last year, and at that time, I had decided that no, I would not give up my seat for a child, any child (the lap idea had never crossed my mind).  This was my main reason why: I am a person who meaningfully contributes to society, and who still has several years to continue to contribute.  How do I know that the child I give my seat up to won't turn out to be a murderer, a rapist, a swindler, a person who skips out on a child support, or a drug addict?  I know it sounds really messed up to think about people that way, especially children, but in a situation of life and death, who is the better candidate to survive?  In short, I wasn't thinking about who would best survive physically, but about who deserved to survive based on what he or she could contribute after the fact.  Is denying a child the potential to become someone great, or someone nefarious, considered selfish?  Am I putting too much importance on what I'd already accomplished, and what I knew I still could accomplish if given a full lifespan?  At what point does one life become more important than another? 

When I now think about the situation with the knowledge that I know the child...if, for instance, the child happens be my niece or nephew, or the child of close friends or family members, then it becomes a little more tricky.  Of course I would want them to survive, and how could I look their parents in the face and tell them that I was keeping my seat and that their child would die with the boat?  In that situation, I would have to give up my seat, but I still probably wouldn't want to.  In a sense, if I gave up my seat for any reason other than selflessness, it would be out of guilt, rather than out of consideration of future potential contribution.  In my mind, that takes away from the gesture of giving up the seat, regardless of the fact that the outcome is the same...the child survives and I die.  

I told Simon all of this, all the while afraid that he was going to think I was some sort of evil person who believed that non-contributing members of society don't deserve to be there at all, regardless if they are children.  He thought about it for a bit, and he didn't necessarily agree with what I said, but he understood where it was coming from.  Why do the lives of children trump the lives of adults?  Why is the death of a child so much more tragic than the death of an adult?  I know these sound like silly questions, and some will dismiss my questions as the ramblings of someone who has never had children, and therefore doesn't understand how a child's life is more important than an adult's, but I think they're rather thoughtful questions, and they're questions that people don't ask because they make others uncomfortable.

In the end, given the idea that children are able to sit on laps and would therefore automatically survive, Simon would give up his seat for a teenager, but probably no one else.  I would give up my seat for a teenager I knew, but no one else.  Does that say something about our ethics?  In this situation, is Simon ethically better than me?  It's easy to come to these conclusions when not actually faced with this situation in real life, but it's something that was interesting to both think about and talk about.