Saturday, December 16, 2017

Rebuttal To the NYT OP-ED Repeal the Second

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

3 years later...

 Yay, I quit smoking.  I moved around a bit.  I saw Covid19 and survived.  I even got vaccinated for it, and outside of some really weird dr...