Guns ‘n’ Motives

Let me start by saying I haven’t written much about guns or gun violence.  Twice, to be exact, both in 2015 (October and December) and one of those was more about hate than about guns.  This time, I am writing about guns.

As I’ve said previously, I have no use for guns.  Never owned one.  Never will.  Can’t shoot ‘em straight if I did (I have an eye defect that inhibits my ability to sight the target, and I proved I’m awful about this once when I did a radio story about the local ROTC Turkey Shoot and they foolishly let me try to hit the target for the story and even though they showed me how to do it I wound up hitting the target…in the next booth over).

A gun, whatever the type – handgun, rifle, AR-15, has one and only one purpose – to maim or kill whatever is being shot at.  Period.  Any other “weapon” is similar to this, though there are many tools that have other primary purposes that are used as weapons, too.  Knives, hammers, hands, feet, and so on.

Again, a gun is a weapon designed to main or kill.  You might say, “No, I use it for defense” and my response is “So you use it for defense, in case your home or your family is attacked, and the purpose of this defense is to…do what, exactly?  Maim or kill whoever is attacking, I assume.”  You might “I use it for target practice” and I would respond “Yes, so you can shoot more accurately, so when the time comes to use the gun to maim or kill you can more accurately hit your target.”  Do you want to practice hitting a target?  Play darts, or play lawn darts (oh, wait, that’s outlawed). 

Some folks hunt.  Yup.  Many friends (and some relatives) do this.  I understand completely.  Of course, they hunt animals, not humans, but again, they use whatever weapon they use to maim or kill their prey.  Can’t deny that.  Bow & arrow serves the same purpose and is much more of a challenge (I knew a guy in Idaho who was more successful getting his elk/deer this way).

But when the national discussion turns to gun violence, we never get to talk about guns.  And that’s on purpose.

The first tactic is to delay the conversation, partly to defuse the emotion that comes right after yet again another mass shooting.  “It’s too soon,” they say, and what they really mean is “Is never soon enough for you?” because they never wish to discuss it.

Then, when there is “conversation” it’s merely one side throwing out words and statistics and the other side responding with the same.  But as you surely know by now, you can make statistics say whatever you want.

And they do.

Recently, the old “hammers kill more people than rifles” argument has been circulating, and you know what?  It’s true.  It’s cherry-picking the data, of course, but it leaves the impression that guns are not the problem.  And that’s wrong.  Here’s the data:

Now, you see that there are separate categories for handguns, rifles, shotguns, and firearms (not specified).  Why?  Why would these be separate categories?  One reason could be because combining all of them together makes the chart look like this: 

All firearms are now shown to be TEN TIMES more lethal than the next highest category (knives/cutting devices).  Draw your own conclusions.

Another argument making the rounds again is the fact that in Switzerland, every male citizen 21 and older is MANDATED to have guns at home, so why not do this in America?  And yes, this is a true (as far as it goes) statement, because of the Swiss Army’s rules regarding their militia.  So if that’s true, why this chart?

 

Note that Switzerland is here along with damn near every other country having low death rates.  The answer, of course, is that while the Swiss have plenty of guns at home, they HAVE NO AMMO.  Big dif.

But it’s these “facts” and “statistics” that continue to muddy the waters when it comes to discussing guns and gun violence, as does the tired drumbeat of “SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.”  The facts are that weaponry is far different now than in 1791, and the amendment calls for a “well-regulated” militia.

Consider that we’ve changed voting laws considerably since then – in 1791 only white males who owned property could vote.  And the militia only had three types of weapons: single-shot rifles, swords, and cannons.

It seems that when it comes to voting, certain factions wish to make it harder to register and harder to vote.  That same faction wishes to make it EASIER to own a gun.  Seems weird.

Another analogy:  when it comes to abortion, certain factions wish to make it harder to get one.  That same faction wishes to make it EASIER to own a gun.  Seems weirder.  Especially since those who really want to reduce the number of abortions know that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a far better method.  Increase the public’s knowledge, sex education, access to pregnancy prevention like pills and condoms, and other methods help reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  And it’s those same steps that certain factions wish to reduce or eliminate.  The very things that could achieve the supposedly “goal” of reducing abortion are tossed aside in favor of outright restriction.  But the very things that might achieve the goal of reduced gun violence (background checks, liability insurance, banning assault weapons, invest in better gun technology, and eliminate restrictions on gun violence research, for example) are never considered in favor of…the idea that more guns are the solution.

Seems weird.

Anyway, we’re going to have that “conversation” again and I know how it will turn out because it ALWAYS turns out that way.  Still, here is a page with some wonderful charts to use when having that conversation.  Good luck.