I am a gun owner, and I am liberal. I
am not going to drop a ton of facts about this or that, but I am
going to discuss my views here about Mr. Stephens' (no relation)
OP-ED in the NYT from October of this year.
He starts his opinion piece by talking
about never understanding the conservative fetish for the Second
Amendment. To be honest, I don't really understand this Red Dawn
mentality that many people have. Its like some fever pitch dream in
which some foreign government invades the US, by force, and a ragtag
group of people flee off into the woods and take the fight to them
with whatever arms they can muster. Yeah, outside of a movie plot,
that isn't really going to work out so well. As for why I own guns,
I like shooting. No, I don't go to the range to have my moment of
being Dirty Harry, seriously, the amount of paperwork for his antics
would kill a man. I go to the range to practice a skill set, just
like some go to golf ranges/batting cage to hit a little ball with a
club/bat. I enjoy it, its a time where I can be by myself, I can
focus on one aspect of life, me, a paper target, and a tool. I enjoy
the history of many firearms, I enjoy learning about them, their
history, the history of their nation of origin, and the battles they
fought and the people who fought them (in case of Mil-Surp rifles).
In many cases I enjoy the aesthetics of these same handguns, as
previously mentioned the weight of their history, the scars on them,
the story they tell, and the weight of that story. There is, in my
mind, nothing like looking at an old K98, that has the original
German markings struck through by Israeli markings, with a .308
stamped into the stock. Nazi guns sent to Israel as part of a
reparations package because of the Holocaust. Or the Swiss K31's
with the previous owners name and address written neatly on a piece
of paper behind the butt plate. Or those old Husquvarna Mausers,
that show scarring from the wood bullets used for training Swedish
troops. Those things are all unique, and I find them interesting.
They all tell a story, like the Mosin with several notches taken out
of the stock (along with two fill spots in the chamber indicating it
had a scope at one time), originally built before the second battle
of Stalingrad. I can imagine some poor Russian soldier sitting in a
burnt out building with that rifle, trying to protect what remained
of his home, his country from invaders. I am not alone in viewing
firearms in this manner, many people see them as something more than
a tool for killing. I also hunt, poorly I will add. Sometimes the
urge to be out in nature is strong in this farm boy. 99% of the
time, I just go set up shop in the middle of nowhere, and relax. Its
not about bagging an animal, its not the act, its just being outside
in the crisp air, being one with nature, fresh air and nothing but
me, nature, and a rifle. Some say, I can do that without the gun,
and I could, but there again is an inherent weight, more than just
the physical weight of carry a rifle.
Stephens, in his OP-ED states that
states with higher rates of gun ownership have more murders. But
look at Wyoming, as of 2007 (which was the newest information I
found), has a nearly 60% ownership rate. Now, I chose Wyoming
because it is an strange case. The firearm homicide rate is zero,
but it has one of the highest firearm death rates, according to the
CDC and Factcheck.org. Now, it was surmised that there are many
factors playing into this odd statistic. Higher poverty rates,
longer travel times to hospitals, lower educational standards... The
thing I stress is that correlation is not causation. We cannot say
that more laws prevent more deaths, just look at California. But we
cannot say the opposite either. When Harvard University conducts a
study and claims that it cannot establish a cause and effect
relationship between two things, I cannot argue. Now, they noted
that it appeared to be the case, but there are also outside factors
that played a roll in the study. You know those things that the NRA
(~gag~) has taken to constantly pointing out. Poverty, education,
mental health, and other factors play a roll in violence, and gun
deaths.
He also makes a point to use actual
discharge of a gun in defensive situations. As a human being, one of
sound mind, in my view that is the worst possible outcome in a
defensive firearm use. Have I ever needed to shoot at someone, no,
and I am glad for it. Have I ever had to pull a gun in a defensive
manner, no. But, I have had to visibly use a firearm as a defensive
means. It is all a matter of perspective, I see a defensive gun use
as three separate stages. Three instances where cooler heads can
prevail, two of which do not include someone being shot, but require
intent. I have only had to have the firearm seen on my person.
Rationality struck, and things calmed down. That for me is the ideal
defensive firearm use, one in which it is only seen, not heard, and
not felt.
He refers to the Whiskey Rebellion, the
New York Draft Riots of 1863 and the Coal Miner's Rebellion of 1921,
and how they are not great moments in history. Hey history, and I
love me some history. So, as we all know, the Whiskey Rebellion was
in response to federal taxes on, of all things, whiskey. Yeah, that
wasn't exactly a bright spot on our history, I mean we had just
finished a war in which people were tired of being taxed without
representation, and those who took up arms, many previously US
soldiers, felt that the government had become the very thing they had
fought against in the Revolution. Of course, the whole rebellion
only had eighteen deaths total (four combatants killed, twelve died
of illness/accident and two civilians), over four years. Now 170
people were arrested, for tax evasion. Thats more of a libertarian
thing, but again, not a high point. The New York Draft Riots, were a
response to people getting drafted into a war, the Civil War. Now,
this is a low point, these people were drafted into war, and many
were royally upset that for a sum of $300 one could hire a substitute
to take their place. Imagine if you will, the government reinstates
the draft, and for the paltry sum of $10,000 you could pay for some
other person to take your place? Well, thats actually a good deal,
but only for the people who could afford the sum of money. Of course
there was racism involved, a lot of people were concerned about wages
and jobs when those slaves were freed. Then you have the Miner's
Rebellion. On this, Stephens appears to have zero understanding of
the underlying causes. These men and women did not revolt because
they thought it would be fun, it wasn't about funding the government,
and it wasn't about being drafted into a war because they couldn't
afford to pay for someone else to take their place. It was because
the coal companies were using and abusing people, they were keeping
them in a perpetual state of debt, and could take everything they
owned away from them for no reason. They wanted rights, they wanted
fair treatment. They wanted fair pay for their labor, safer
conditions while working, and to not have to worry about owing their
soul to the company store, or becoming homeless because of rumors
they were part of a Union. They fought for the right for all people
to unionize, without reprisal from the company. They fought to
avenge the people of Matewan, specifically the assassination of Sid
Hatfield, who prevented miners from being evicted because of union
ties. A low point in history considering that the state and federal
government sided with the coal companies. But in all three
instances, the people were not listened to, they went ignored, and
fought back in the means they felt appropriate. Truthfully, these
people all felt they were right, and the end results brought growth
and change. They might not be the greatest of moments, but what
followed the low points, the acts, led to some greatness, well in at
least one of these events. And it had little to do with the Second
Amendment, I'll give him that, but these moments wouldn't have
happened without it.
Stephens then moves onto the active
shooter era. He points out that the Vegas shooter wouldn't have
raised eyebrows with mental health experts. And based on all we
haven't learned from the Vegas shooting, we'll never really know. We
don't know why he did it, we only know he did. They say we will
never know why, and we really need to know the truth of it. How can
we prevent something if we do not know or understand the why?
Now we move into some things, that I do
kind of agree with. There is no gun-show loophole, its a private
sale loophole. The AR15 is not a true assault rifle, and its ban, or
banning rifles of a similar nature won't have any effect on the
overall murder rate. Would it slow some mass shooters down,
possibly. And the vast majority of firearms purchases have a
background check, a system that could be improved, vastly improved,
but mostly works. Now, he talks about how the NRA has only donated
slightly more than three and a half million dollars to members of
congress over the last twenty years. Yeah, I really need to fact
check that one myself.
Stephens talks about potential
solutions. A buy back program, which he says have shown poor
results. He talks about due process for the mentally ill, and if you
have bought a firearm in any shop, or attempted to, you will notice
that the forms include a question about being judged mentally
defective by a court of law, or having been involuntarily committed
to an institution. Funny thing is, that actually has due process
attached. When one is involuntarily committed, they go before a
judge or magistrate for a hearing, at which time the person is judged
mentally deficient, or they are not. If they are, then they are
prohibited from owning a firearm. He talks about private sales
background checks, and I don't honestly know how law enforcement
would go about enforcing that law. But he then points out that, and
this is a real kick, that most guns used in a crime are rarely used
by the owner.
His solution, repeal the second
amendment. Okay, now, forget the fact that two thirds of the states
would need to sign off on this, and remember this isn't the same as
same-sex marriage. But how would this work exactly? We go from
shall issue to may issue permits to own firearms? Certainly, it
would complicate the whole process, which isn't exactly easy or hard.
I mean lets talk shop about actually buying a gun here, and if you
haven't, you really should. I am not saying go buy a gun, but go to
multiple shops and look around and ask about the process. Now, I
window shop a lot, it comes with being poor, sometimes I find
something I like, most of the time, I don't. On rare occasions I
find something that I like, and happen to have a few dollars, so I do
the sensible thing, I put it on lay-o-way. Like I did with an
Enfield rifle I saw a month ago. I looked at the rifle, I talked to
the person helping me, asked about the price, and how much I would
need to put a hold on the rifle. Great! That is the fun easy part
of the deal. Next I get handed two forms that I need to fill out,
and produce my ID. Easier yet. I fill out the paperwork, while they
are notifying the State Police where I live, and BAFTA for the
background check. All the while I am being watched by the clerk or
manager of the store. Everything I say, everything I do is watched
and listened to. Background check comes back clean, in my case a few
minutes, and I put my deposit up, and come back within thirty days to
make another payment. When I pick up the rifle, I go through the
background check process again. At any time in the process, the
clerk can elect to refuse to sell me the rifle. The people in the
store can do that, at any time. They can refuse to sell to me based
on my appearance, the things I say, how I act, how I don't act, or
any other number of criteria they choose. I was once refused a
single shot shotgun because I looked disheveled. Recently, a store
owner in Virginia refused sale because he believed that the purchaser
was buying the gun for someone else, a straw purchase. Now, knowing
how some in Virginia are, it was equally likely that the man didn't
want to sell a gun to an African American, but without knowing the
parties involved, I am forced to take the words given on the video,
“You look like a straw purchaser, and I'm not going to sell you
anything.”
Finally he invoked Madison, and
believes that he would side with taking guns away from people, upon
learning that more people perished in a single year than the entire
Revolutionary War. Madison felt that the government should trust its
people with firearms, that America was supposed to be different and
better than its European counterparts. Well, given all I have to
know Madison from are his written words, I cannot say which side of
the argument he would come down on. What I can say, is that at one
time he felt it was required, and if presented with the knowledge of
this day, we don't know how he would feel. Given the tendencies of
our government, I might be inclined to think his notions about gun
rights wouldn't be his top priority. I think that might well be true
of all the founding fathers, who weren't exactly saints to begin
with.
No comments:
Post a Comment