I keep hearing idiots like the NRA gundamentalists (not my term but it’s apt) saying things like “if they had only had guns in the Bible study this may not have been so bad” or “if only the school in Newtown had only had armed security”.
No, no, no, no. Good gawd people! More guns aren’t going to help.
Here’s what happens when the shooting starts: you’re in church or at Wal-Mart or a restaurant or any place with people in around. Suddenly someone starts shooting. We’re human beings, and the fight or flight instinct kicks in and people start running for cover. In the ensuing chaos it’s hard to ascertain exactly who is doing the shooting cuz you’re busy trying to make sure you’re not in the line of fire.
But no - you, you gundamentalist - you think that you alone are going to be able to remain calm, you are going to be able to pull your weapon or swing it around, you’re going to be able to have the calmness and composure to find the shooter, take steady aim, and take him, and only him out, cuz ya know, you’re a hero. You - who can barely contain your anger when arguing with others on Facebook or other venues – you’re going to be the picture of calm. Riiiiiiiight.
This isn’t you in your house getting your gun cuz you can hear someone inside that you can quietly find and confront. This isn’t you hunting with your buddies. This isn’t you doing some backyard target practice. This isn’t a war zone where you can just shoot in the direction the shooting is coming from and not worry. And you’re not a sniper, who’s well trained and has a place where you are hunkered down and have the concentration to be able to steadily aim and fire. Newsflash – Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer are fictional characters. You ain’t them.
Lest you forget, being armed, and trained well in weapons use I might add, couldn’t save Chris Kyle and his friend. And there have been several shootings at military bases, including Fort Hood – where having armed folks around didn’t help much if at all. And there was an armed guard at Columbine for crying out loud! Lots of help those extra guns were. Geez.
And let’s not forget the guy who was down the street when the shooting started in Tucson. He heard it start and he wasn’t in the direct area, so he was on the more composed side. He was armed so he ran towards the commotion. In the chaos, he saw a guy with a gun and shoved him into a wall and hollering at him to “drop it, drop it!” convinced at the time that he was the shooter. Our ‘hero’ had his safety off and his hand on his gun and he’s very lucky that he didn’t pull it out and fire on the guy, who was an originally unarmed guy who managed to get the actual shooter’s gun away from him. Don’t forget this ‘hero’ was likely more calm and composed than those that were there when the actual shooting first started. Even our hero knows he got very lucky that he made that lucky split second decision not to draw and shoot. The icing on the cake: he didn’t pull his weapon cuz he didn’t want to be mistaken for the shooter. That was probably his saving grace. And he’s right too – if I’m the cops that arrive at the scene and I see a guy with a gun, I’m way more likely to shoot him in the chaos, thinking he’s the shooter.
More guns heighten the chaos. More guns are detrimental to others’ safety. More guns are a prescription for sheer pandemonium and crossfire and more casualties. And with no demand for any safety classes in order to own a gun, a great many of gun owners today don’t have any proper training with them, unlike 50 years ago when most had to do their conscription and as such, were trained. And if you were trained properly by your family and friends, you should have no problem passing a gun safety class, right?
The true criminals will always have guns. They do in every country regardless of that country’s gun laws and they always have. They don’t have the more and more frequent mass shootings or the level of gun violence that we have here. Why is that? I think it’s because if it is a little harder for those who really shouldn’t have guns to get one, then maybe we can cut down on the sheer level of gun violence. If an angry possibly off kilter person who is not necessarily a criminal yet had to go through a few extra steps to get one and couldn’t qualify due to those steps, he would have to have the money and have to find a connection to illegally get one. And the more people he has to inquire about where to get one, the more chance someone will either turn him in or talk him down. That’s a little victory.
And, no, putting an extra few steps in place to acquire a gun won’t stop the violence in the near future, but in the long run it will start to make a dent. Yesterday I compared it to the terrible pollution California had in the 1970s. A few new rules put in place didn’t immediately clear up the problem, but damn if 10 years later the air wasn’t a lot better there. That’s the kind of effect I am talking about.
I don’t want to take away your guns. I want you to be more responsible with your guns. I don’t want to worry every time I go to the store that I’m going to be at a place where I could be killed by an angry shooter or by crossfire by someone who thinks they are Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer. I don’t want to go to a bar and worry that some guy who’s all liquored up is gonna get angry and pull his gun and start shooting. I don’t want guns to be everywhere with everybody all the time. They don’t help the problem or solve the problem; they tend to worsen the problem if anything. As the examples noted above, more guns rarely, if ever, save the day. In the end, it’s generally been trained law enforcement officers who have brought down or apprehended the shooters, and not some bystander who fancies himself a hero.
(cross posted at Poligirl's Punditry)