Guns, Guns, Guns

Man with “divine calling”
puts clock in microwave,
shoots up hotel room.

Guns, guns, guns. This appears to be one of those issues that just doesn’t die, I suspect because there seem to be extremists on both sides of the argument. I know from past experience that if you express any opinion at all on this volatile topic you can expect to hear from someone who believes you are an absolute idiot. Nonetheless, I will approach it once again, with the warning that I am of two minds about it (perhaps even three or four).

I received a call today from someone representing the NRA. I sometimes receive mail from them also, imploring me to support one position or another having to do with guns, the 2nd amendment, and such. I think the reason they approach me is because they just automatically assume that if you live in North Idaho you must be an NRA supporter or sympathizer. Anyway, this young man (I think he must have been a young man from the sound of his voice) began by asking me when was the last time I could have fired a gun or hunted. I told him every day, if I wished. He then proceeded to tell me that our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was pushing a bill that would take away our rights to own guns. He wasn’t too clear on this point because he also said the bill would require gun owners to have an ID with a photo and a thumb print, a somewhat different thing than taking away our guns. He wanted me to pay $120 dollars for a five-year membership in the NRA. When I said I didn’t wish to join, he then offered me a two-year membership for less money. I still refused to join, but I did tell him that if Holder was, indeed, going to try to take away guns I would not be amenable.

I could not find anywhere on the web where it said Holder was pushing such a bill, although there is to be a Supreme Court decision having to do with gun rights. As I understand it, one argument is that the 2nd amendment only applies to Federal legislation, not local. I think this has to do with a case in Chicago where the question has to do with whether or not Chicago or any other city can regulate guns independently of the Federal Government. I confess I don’t really understand all this very well. However, I have given some thought to the issue of guns and gun control. I believe the NRA is much too extreme in their protection of gun rights and related issues. For example, I think the recent decision to allow loaded guns in National Parks is ridiculous, just as I believe it is ridiculous for people to have guns in churches and bars. On the other hand I think it is equally ridiculous for people to want to ban guns, even handguns, completely. I have never been a proponent of States Rights as I am fearful that if such rights were allowed too easily they would still be hanging people in the South and so on. Furthermore, it strikes me as impractical for States, or Counties, or Cities to claim certain rights. For example, a few years back the “Wise Use” movement thought that counties should be able to control everything, especially their natural resources. This struck me as absurd because of course the rivers and forests don’t begin and end at the Country lines and such. In the case of guns, however, I think a good argument can be made for local control because guns are a much greater problem in some areas than others. In the inner cities, for example, handguns do seem to be a very serious problem, linked to crime and drug dealing and gangs. It seems reasonable to me that in places where guns are a serious problem the local governments should be allowed control over them. In rural areas, like North Idaho, most everyone has guns, often of all kinds, but they do not constitute the same kind of problem, if, indeed, a problem at all. A Federal ban on guns, even handguns, does not seem necessarily reasonable to me when it applies to everywhere, especially where there may not be problems in the first place.

The argument that everyone should be entitled to own a gun for self-protection is not as simple as it appears. I believe that fundamentally it is basically correct, people do have a right to self-protection. But I run into difficulty when I consider what a definition of self-protection might be. A legitimate homeowner, for example, ought to have such a right, but what about criminals and drug dealers? If they are out on the street committing crimes or peddling drugs or gang banging, is their having a gun a legitimate case of self-protection? Do you really have a right to self-protection while you are out committing crimes? This seems to me quite absurd. But realistically, how would you control who has a legitimate right to a handgun and who does not? I suppose hypothetically you could do this, but practically it would seem a nightmare.

Still another problem with handgun ownership for self-protection has to do with the practical realities of protection. For example, there are attempts to insist that all guns should have trigger locks, or be kept locked up or at least unloaded and safe from children. But what is the point of having a locked, or locked up gun if it is to be used for self-protection? This doesn’t make sense. You might as well just have a club. Much of the problem, I think, has to do with the fact that there are, roughly speaking, two kinds of people in the U.S., those who have never had, or even seen guns, and those who are completely familiar with them. I personally have known people who, having never seen a gun, are horrified at even the thought of guns, and have no understanding whatsoever as to why anyone would have one. I suspect that many of those who are actively into gun control are people like this. I do not believe it is much of an exaggeration to say that such people are on another planet from the gun owners they seek to control. Neither side seems either willing or able to see the other’s point of view.

Although no one seems to know precisely how many guns there are in the U.S., I have seen figures that suggest 192 million guns, 65 million of which are handguns, and they are still being manufactured and sold. This suggest to me, even compels me, to believe that any attempt to “take away our guns” will be a completely lost cause. It seems to me it would be totally impractical to try to register all of these guns, many of which are illegal to begin with, and the resistance on the part of gun owners would be immense. It would be just another case of prohibition that could not conceivably work. The prohibition on alcohol was a dismal failure, the prohibition of marijuana is a dismal failure, and the attempted prohibition of guns would be the same. At best it would result in converting millions of U.S. citizens into criminals, would create an enormous black market, and would simply fail. Thus when I hear these claims of a Federal ban on guns I simply shake my head and say it will never happen. This does not mean that I think all attempts in all places to place some controls on guns are misguided.

LKBIQ:
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
C. S. Lewis