Needless to say, social media has exploded with liberal and conservative cries for gun control versus vigilante justice. Having accidentally taken part in one of these arguments, I had a few reflections.
By reflections, I mean gloats that read as such: "You are wrong. Asshole."
Reading these Facebook comments makes me sad for our future, as in Floridians, Americans, and humanity in general. Our romanticization of gun culture in combination with our soul-depleting, media-soaked xenophobia has led to everyone basically losing their fucking minds. Obviously, this case in question is a one-in-a-million event and immeasurably retarded, so the gun control issue is not as obviously attached to the issue as much as one would think. But people are jumpy and want a soapbox, and who am I not to oblige?
Although I agree that this movie theater murderer (a retired police officer, no less) and his strange compulsion to bring a gun with him to see a movie is ridiculous, I think that there is a bigger point here. It is not where we are and are not allowed to take weapons, but rather the American impulse to always be armed. Guess what? Taking a "Polk County sheriff departments gun safety class" (to quote a young female commenter) is not, in my opinion, enough training and familiarity with firearms. Especially not enough to warrant soccer moms, retirees, or anyone else carrying weapons meant solely for the purposes of killing to places like Disney World, movie theaters, rodeos, or anywhere else. It is a big responsibility and a power that few have ever used for good. The young woman responds to my comment as if it is personal:
"If a big guy is coming after me and my kids, I have the right to defend myself."Of course you do, you idiot. But as I always point out, if a big guy gets the drop on you (more likely), rather than attack face-to-face (less likely), you are just giving him a gun to kill you and everyone else with. Why does everyone think that if they are attacked, they will turn into John McClane as long as they are armed?
To relate this to the Tampa murder; if no one in the theater had a gun, then no one would be dead today.
We are apparently OK with going backward 100 years to the Wild West again. I had foolishly thought that we'd made it further than that. And this "only criminals will have guns if we beef up gun laws" argument against gun control legislation is a weak one at best, and I'm really fucking tired of hearing it.
Criminals are also the only ones with drugs and prostitutes as well, which makes me sad. Move on. More people wind up getting themselves killed trying to "fend off" an attacker with a weapon rather than just losing their wallet or car, which are both replaceable.
There is an easy explanation for why we all want to carry weapons. It is pride. Simple pride. No one wants to be the victim. No one wants anyone else to have any kind of power over them, and everyone lacks the humility to realize that it's usually just replaceable crap that we're losing. There is no reason to try and be Rambo unless you are, in fact, trained as such. In which case, you wouldn't even need the gun. But that said, sometimes it is actually better to put your hands up, cooperate, and give up your shit. You'll likely get it back or can replace it if not. What you cannot replace is the father or mother for your kids when you end up eating a hollowpoint from your own weapon.
The argument was raised that cities that have outlawed weapons such as Chicago or Washington, D.C. have seen a subsequent explosion of violent crime. This is actually not the case, however, since the Chicago handgun ban was enacted from 1982 to 2010. Chicago's homicides were going down years before handguns were re-permitted in the city in 2010. Stop getting your numbers from Ted Nugent.
Here in Central Florida, home of George Zimmerman and other violent dildos, we have a staggering amount of crime per capita. Strange, these frothy conservative arguments against gun control, since weapons have always been legal here in the Sunshine State. Hell, they are even further expanded to include the "Stand Your Ground" law, enabling the active stalking and murdering of those we are scared of. Good ol' Florida is very friendly towards guns.
So why are the criminals not running scared? Because you're just some asshole, that's why. Remember, these criminals are not afraid to shoot a goddamn cop anymore. Why in the hell would they be "deterred" in any way by the late shift bartender at Coyote Ugly who has a pink .380 revolver that she barely knows how to use?
Then come some well-researched* comments, complete with links to random Googled articles (the * means that you're a moron who couldn't source WIC checks in a trailer park):
"I guess we need to outlaw knives, baseball bats, and hammers since they've been used in movie theaters to hurt people."
OK, I know. That's a ridiculous argument, but this is the actual line of thinking that we see time and time again. By that logic, we outlaw banana peels since Bugs Bunny may slip on one. Fuck you and read something other than REO Speedwagon CD jackets, you dick.
I'll make this quick because it is silly, Gregory. You know who you are, and I hope you are reading this. Knives and baseball bats have other purposes: cooking and playing baseball. Guns only have one purpose. I'd also venture a guess that movie theaters might get a little squeamish about someone bringing a baseball bat to see a movie, so that wouldn't even need a law, I wouldn't think. And personally, yes, I do fully support legislation against concealed hammers.
Rather than trying to be a smart-ass to me (which I am much better at than some; namely, you), why not make a valid point based on thoughtful research? If not, please save the snarky one-liners for your next shift at AutoZone, cunt.
Next, I get a barrage of shit about semantics:
"You didn't say concealed weapons, you just said guns! You don't know anything! People use guns for sports like shooting clays and hunting! Don't they have rights, too?" (At this point, presumably puts in another pinch of Skoal and crosses arms, satisfied that the liberal faggots are dummies)My reply:
"Not many people shoot clay or hunt with concealable handguns. If they do, that's real-man status and badass. But you're right. I don't shoot clays or hunt and do not really consider those to be "sports" any more than I consider bowling a sport. Others do, so fair enough. However, something (such as attacks with knives, baseball bats, and hammers in movie theaters) isn't necessarily prevalent just because you Google the exact words you're looking for, pulling up every documented case worldwide throughout history. Our rights are somewhat negotiable. Do pedophiles not have the right to bang kids? Does Michael Vick have the right to beat a pit bull with an extension cord? Do I have the right to build low-yield fertilizer bombs in my basement? No, of course not. We, as a society, have decided that certain things are not acceptable. This is a hallmark of modern society and human advancement. My hope is that we will not always have a use for putting a weapon that simplifies the act of taking a life in the hands of every American purely based on fear and misinformation."
To be clear, my argument is against concealed weapons for the masses in general and assault rifles, not banning all weapons. I am a veteran and also have a CWP, minus the compulsion to carry a handgun with me everywhere I go "just in case." I have a higher level of training than the average citizen in handling firearms. This doesn't make me better with a weapon, just perhaps more understanding of the weight attached to it.
The gun control argument pertains mostly to concealable handguns, high-capacity magazines, and assault rifles. If a nut wanders into a mall with a shotgun that he uses to shoot clay, I can hopefully see him coming because a shotgun, even sawed-off, is still pretty big. This differs from the occasion where I'm arguing with an old fart in a movie theater and he pulls a handgun from nowhere to blast me with. I've been effectively "Pearl-Harbored," which may or may not be preventable.
What I want to see is much tighter regulation, psychiatric evaluation, appropriate tracking measures, and firearm education associated with the purchase and handling of weapons. Multiply that exponentially for CWP applicants. But no, our forefathers made it clear what the rules were with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc., which we use as a blanket to shield ourselves from accountability. Accepting responsibility is something we currently frown upon in the US, so we bypass this and other kinds of effective legislation because it might actually work and (gasp!) mean that parts of our Constitution might be antiquated.
No, these kinds of measures won't prevent the occasional psycho from gunning down a school full of kids, but it might reduce the number of people killed with their own weapons while trying to defend themselves or kids getting gunned down in the street for being suspiciously black.
Many people made examples of European nations and the U.S. cities where firearms were outlawed altogether or banned and then permitted, along with some statistical data leaning towards the deterrent nature of an armed populace. However, criminals often have legally obtained guns as it is legal for them to purchase them unless they are convicted of felonies, or have yet to commit their first crime. Disarming a population of previously armed citizens could lead to an increase in crime, I guess (although the stats do not support this), versus the inherently low levels of gun violence in countries that do not arm the masses from jump.
Based on pure opinion, I feel that there is probably an adjustment period in a population when banning guns from a city, especially cities that have a lot of crime already. In time, I think that these cities mentioned (Chicago, Washington, D.C., and the like, which are also some of the most densely populated in the US, further skewing the numbers) will be better in the long run for the steps they are taking.
The facts are mathematical: population density = crime. Crime + guns = crime. Crime - guns = less guns, less crime.
Armed citizens do not deter criminals in the least, just as disarming citizens is not a signal to criminals that they can now go and do whatever they want to. As long as we Americans have the attitude that gun legislation is "only going after the normal, law-abiding gun owners," rather than the first of many necessary steps to protect them from the bad ones, we'll continue to have these violence issues because the people demand it.
Whatever happened to calling the police and letting them do their jobs? You know, the whole "serve and protect" thing? They're paid to gunfight, not me. Vigilante justice is some Judge Dredd/Batman shit that the world does not need, no matter how awesome a real Batman would actually be.
Everyone that is packing heat to level potential threats or those that they perceive as dangerous is, in fact, a potential vigilante. That is a personal opinion for which I had people all up in my ass about our rights and freedoms, with this Chicago myth oddly at the forefront of all of the conservative arguments.
Everyone that is packing heat to level potential threats or those that they perceive as dangerous is, in fact, a potential vigilante. That is a personal opinion for which I had people all up in my ass about our rights and freedoms, with this Chicago myth oddly at the forefront of all of the conservative arguments.
Look, the numbers and the available data do not support any of those arguments; this Chicago-crimewave-by-way-of-gun-control just a random piece of fiction that gained traction with a push from the NRA but isn't true whatsoever. But for the sake of argument, I'll bite. Let's pretend that Chicago was a bastion of criminal activity and that the only thing that worked to stem the tide of violence was lifting the handgun ban.
Is the answer, then, arming all of Chicago's citizens and letting them exact their own personal brands of justice on whomever they deem criminals? Or is it better to develop a tougher, better police force, a more thorough police presence, stiffer punishments, etc.? I'd prefer the latter, honestly. The former is too scary.
A counterpoint was directed towards me:
"Criminals don't follow our laws. If said criminal knew that the odds of facing a gun are high when using a gun they would probably think about it, and seek an easier way. Criminals are lazy and want everything easy, so to face an equal opponent is not their forte, as they will always prey on the weakest possible target."
Hmm. I'm not sure that potential criminals give crimes such forethought; the majority of violent crimes are crimes of passion and/or opportunity. Violent crimes are also usually perpetrated by someone known to the victim, according to the Department of Justice statistical data. All people, including criminals, have general knowledge that a potential target could be armed, that they could be caught, that they could face prison time, etc. I don't think that loose gun laws really affect the decision-making in their criminal endeavors. I'm not a criminal, so I could admittedly be wrong. But I'm not.
Also, assuming that criminals are all lazy is to underestimate the enemy. That is exactly how people get shot. A gun offers false bravado, allowing both criminals and legal gun owners alike to take on a challenge that they otherwise would not. That's why I use the caveat of vigilantism; that is exactly what happens when dodos legally obtain firearms. All I suggest is to weed out the dodos, and thereby reduce the overall amount of armed people out there.
Then, an angry and sad comment from a woman with a history of tragedy:
"[I am] a victim of RAPE, [and] I would pull that trigger if I had to... I hope your daughters/sisters/cousins/mother never goes through what I've been through. But next time, I promise you - I will be prepared!! AND EVEN IF I DIDN'T PULL THE TRIGGER, DON'T YOU THINK STARING DOWN THE BARREL OF MY GLOCK WOULD SLOW YOU DOWN A BIT??? You cannot tell me what I'm capable of considering you DON'T know me or my story at all. And when you take your concealed class, they make you train with your gun and push constant practice with it so you are prepared, which I do very often. If you think things like that don't really happen, you need to wake up!!!! I've lived it, so don't you DARE tell me I don't deserve the right to protect myself next time. Or protect my daughter from the same life-altering fate!!!"
Although this is a sad story, I feel that I do need to point out the obvious:
We would all truly like to believe that in the face of danger to ourselves or our families, we'd be stone-cold killers with our concealed guns. When faced with violence, though, statistics point in the other direction. Sure, we can all Google a bunch of stories about someone who saved someone with a concealed weapon. But we can find a lot more data about people who lose their weapons to their attackers, who accidentally kill innocent people along with (or not in the least) the attacker, not even getting the gun out, etc.
More often than not, these "illegal" weapons on the streets in the hands of criminals that so many conservatives swear are out there are, in fact, stolen weapons that were legally purchased by someone else (See also: Sandy Hook, AKA legally purchased weapons and ammunition in obscene numbers stolen by a mentally disturbed young man from his mother). Or, due to the goddamn fact that we do not have enough restrictions on the sales and purchasing of guns, there are enough loopholes for criminals to "legally" buy firearms.
I am not dismissing anyone because they are a man or woman or whatever their background is. I have also faced a fair amount of violence in my life, both in military and civilian settings. I have lost friends to violence. But in none of these situations do I think that a gun made the situation any better. In fact, quite the opposite.
Simply put, being angry at something in your past does not miraculously make you a killer now. Being scared does not make you a skilled gunman or lend you some assassin instinct that shunts the pants-shittingly high levels of panic you reach when attacked so that your aim is steady and true.
More often than not (and yes, despite the miscellaneous Googled "hero" stories that will no doubt get posted in the wake of any mentions of gun control), the data that has been meticulously collected over time points overwhelmingly towards you: #1-never using the weapon ever, #2-getting the weapon stolen from you by an attacker/thief/etc. who will use it against you or someone else, or sell it for profit, and #3-using the weapon in a wildly irresponsible manner that ends up with the death of someone innocent (almost never the attacker).
This is the genesis of what I'm talking about: fear cannot be the motivation for carrying a weapon. I'm not talking about responsible gun owners, who more often than not tend to agree with tighter legislation towards the purchase and ownership of firearms. I'm talking in a very general manner about a society of scared people who live in a panicked era of perceived death around every street corner or in every dark alley.
But you need to know something; this is simply not the case, no matter where you live. This line of thinking propagates the popular insane "need" to carry an instrument of death at all times, "just in case." What that ends up meaning is "just in case" someone is texting in the movie theater, or cuts me off in traffic, or starts an argument as soon as I walk through the door. You get the idea.
You are not more likely to save your own life or someone else's life simply by virtue of carrying a weapon around at all times. You are more likely to add to a statistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment