Why I will never own a gun: a personal choice not to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
My poor neglected blog.. it's taken a national tragedy to get me to make a post.
The Newtown tragedy has obviously triggered quite a conversation about guns, gun control, and gun rights. It's a highly emotional issue for quite a few people, and I'm not so sure I have anything new to add to the national debate per se. But, I do have some thoughts on my own personal choice with regard to the 2nd Amendment, which is, I choose not to exercise my rights.
People can own guns for a lot of reasons, I suppose, but two of the most common are: (1) use in activities, primarily hunting, or (2) self-protection. Here are my thoughts on each:
1) Activities
My uncle, on whose farm I spent roughly half my childhood, was an avid deer and duck hunter, and he also trapped muskrats and skinned them to sell the pelts. I used to watch him do that in basement. I also saw him, with one shot, shoot a large snake out of a tree by putting the bullet right through the chin. In short, he was your prototypical rural, gun-owning, hunter-type. But he never owned anything more powerful than a basic rifle. Nothing semiautomatic, no handguns, he didn't walk around everywhere toting a gun, etc. He was quite capable of bringing down a deer or any bird with his basic rifle, and I am confident he would have scoffed at anyone who went out into the woods with anything semiautomatic.
Well, I suppose I shouldn't speak for my uncle. Maybe he wouldn't have cared one way or the other. But I can say with confidence that *I* scoff at anyone who takes a semiautomatic weapon to hunt. Basically, if you require a semiautomatic weapon to bring down a deer, you are not a hunter, you are a dumbass. And pretty much the worst possible kind of dumbass- a dumbass with a semiautomatic weapon.
But regardless of weapon, hunting never much appealed to me, even though I was brought up around it. I actually would enjoy hunting with like a paintball gun or something; you would get all the thrill of being out in nature stalking something, but then at the end you don't have to kill the nice, peaceful-looking deer. Or duck. Or whatever. I would have no problem killing a deer or anything else if it were necessary to survive, but it isn't, and the idea of killing things as a form of recreation just doesn't resonate with me. Implication: I don't need to own a weapon for hunting purposes.
Some folks own weapons just because they like to shoot them for no particular reason. Again, I could enjoy going to a shooting range, but I wouldn't need a gun of my own to go do that- I could just use the guns at the shooting range. I would definitely support an assault weapons ban that had an exception in it for shooting ranges, so that for all the people who just HAVE to get whatever thrill they get from firing semiautomatic or large-caliber guns, those people could go to a licensed, well-regulated facility to do exactly that. But there's no need for the weapons to be allowed anywhere other than licensed shooting ranges.
The bottom line: there are no activities that I would ever engage in that require me to own a gun.
2) Safety
There was an interesting piece in the NYT the other day about how gun ownership is one of the most powerful predictors of partisan voting habits. Here's the link. I mention this because I think there's been a long-run trend in the two political parties of a fundamental divergence about the nature of the future. Increasingly, the Republican party's rhetoric and underlying policy bent assumes a pretty stark version of the future. And if you buy into that premise of a stark future, then your estimate of the threat level out there is going to be a lot higher, and then your desire to have serious weaponry around your house and/or on your person at all times is going to go up.
That's why, I think, you find the trend outlined in the article of Republican gun ownership rates holding steady, while Democratic gun ownership rates are steadily declining. If you don't believe there's a threat, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from that nonexistent (at least to you, nonexistent) threat. The modern Republican party pushes a whole lot of apocalyptic rhetoric, including:
- that there is some kind of dystopian central government that any second now is going to come to take away your rights and freedoms, and probably your stuff.
- as a corollary to that, they're going to come and take your money, in the form of taxes, just to take it and build some kind of socialist hellscape.
- since they're trying to do that, we the Republican party will oppose any kind of tax for any reason, which hey, just happens to primarily benefit really rich people, but whatever- that's just coincidence. Of course, if we keep benefiting rich people, and socking it to the poor people, who, let's face it, there are a *lot* more of, then eventually those poor people are probably going to get pissed off and come for us, so we rich people better grab for everything we can right now, before the party is over and the mob is at the gate. And when they are, we'd better be armed to the teeth to hold them off.
- The deficit is going to lead to a massive collapse of the dollar, the world economy, and possibly civilization. The only way to stop it is to screw old people and the poor. The fact that the evil Democrats have refused to do this only emphasizes the need to arm yourself to protect against the coming fiscal collapse. It's right around the corner, we swear. Never mind that inflation is low, borrowing costs for the federal government are lower than at any point in history, and that most of the deficit stems from either GDP operating at below its productive capacity, or the Bush-era tax cuts, which mostly benefited the wealthy... never mind all those things. THERE IS A CRISIS ABOUT TO HAPPEN AND YOU MUST PREPARE YOURSELF!
- There's a war on Christmas, and religious freedom in general. Never mind that Christmas shit is up before *Thanksgiving* these days, and you can't go *anywhere* without hearing annoying Christmas music, there's a war, a war I tell you! Best to join the fight against the oppressors, and arm yourself just in case.
- All those people out there who voted for the Democrat, they're "takers". They "want stuff". They "want things". Probably your things. Arm yourself wherever you go, so you can protect yourself from the "takers".
Once you've been immersed in this apocalyptic vision long enough, the world becomes a dark, threatening place. And with all those threats out there, of course you'd want to protect yourself. Of course you'd want to be armed. I mean, if I thought the zombie apocalypse was actually right around the corner, my garage would look like an army supply depot. But here's the thing:
There's no reason to believe an apocalypse is about to happen.
I have this argument with my brother all the time, who is convinced the economy is imminently going to implode because of the national debt. I think that perspective, while understandable, is not supported by the economic evidence. But beyond that I look in the world and I see the following things:
- By every available measure, the incidence of violence in the world is dropping. Wars, domestic violence, rape, murder, all of it is declining at the global level. There are obviously pockets, in failed states or in certain areas of certain cities, etc., but the big picture on violence is positive in the sense that it is declining, and has been for a while.
- More of the world is democratic, and democracies don't fight each other. It doesn't make any economic sense to do so. Also, lots of people in the world are no longer poor. Projections show that some time in the next couple decades, fewer than half the world's population will be poor for the first time in all of human history. Does that mean we can sit back and not care about poverty? No. But again, the macroscopic trend is good.
- We are on the cusp of some truly amazing technological advances. It's going to be really exciting to see what gets developed in the first half of the 21st century: in medicine, in communications, in energy, in space exploration.
So the big picture is: the world is (slowly, fitfully) growing more safe, not less so. Now, that still doesn't address the small picture, which is: do I bring a gun into my home, and/or do I carry one around with me wherever I go, to "protect myself". The answer is no, for the following reason:
The basic calculus you have to do is: is the risk of not having a gun and then needing it, because someone breaks in, or someone attacks you while you're out and about, greater than the risk of some kind of accident resulting from the gun? Children who grow up in homes with guns have a dramatically higher probability of injury or death resulting from an accident with a firearm than do children who grow up in homes without guns. Do you want to expose your children to that added risk? The answer is yes only if you believe that the external threats/risks are even greater. And that's why I don't have one, and likely never will- because I don't believe the external threats are greater.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that there's zero risk out there in the world. Murders still happen. Rapes still happen. Assaults still happen. Mentally ill people still walk into public places and start spraying the area. But, I believe the evidence suggests that people are basically good, and getting better, and that the world is basically good, and getting better, and that guns will always add more risk than they take away. For that reason, I will not allow them in my home, and I will wholeheartedly support sensible gun-control regulation that balances the philosophical reality of having the 2nd Amendment with the practical reality of needing to all coexist in a reasonably safe way.
Balance. Balance is the key. I don't think we have balance today with our gun-control policies, but I'm hoping that these tragic events of the past several months will finally move us in that direction.
My poor neglected blog.. it's taken a national tragedy to get me to make a post.
The Newtown tragedy has obviously triggered quite a conversation about guns, gun control, and gun rights. It's a highly emotional issue for quite a few people, and I'm not so sure I have anything new to add to the national debate per se. But, I do have some thoughts on my own personal choice with regard to the 2nd Amendment, which is, I choose not to exercise my rights.
People can own guns for a lot of reasons, I suppose, but two of the most common are: (1) use in activities, primarily hunting, or (2) self-protection. Here are my thoughts on each:
1) Activities
My uncle, on whose farm I spent roughly half my childhood, was an avid deer and duck hunter, and he also trapped muskrats and skinned them to sell the pelts. I used to watch him do that in basement. I also saw him, with one shot, shoot a large snake out of a tree by putting the bullet right through the chin. In short, he was your prototypical rural, gun-owning, hunter-type. But he never owned anything more powerful than a basic rifle. Nothing semiautomatic, no handguns, he didn't walk around everywhere toting a gun, etc. He was quite capable of bringing down a deer or any bird with his basic rifle, and I am confident he would have scoffed at anyone who went out into the woods with anything semiautomatic.
Well, I suppose I shouldn't speak for my uncle. Maybe he wouldn't have cared one way or the other. But I can say with confidence that *I* scoff at anyone who takes a semiautomatic weapon to hunt. Basically, if you require a semiautomatic weapon to bring down a deer, you are not a hunter, you are a dumbass. And pretty much the worst possible kind of dumbass- a dumbass with a semiautomatic weapon.
But regardless of weapon, hunting never much appealed to me, even though I was brought up around it. I actually would enjoy hunting with like a paintball gun or something; you would get all the thrill of being out in nature stalking something, but then at the end you don't have to kill the nice, peaceful-looking deer. Or duck. Or whatever. I would have no problem killing a deer or anything else if it were necessary to survive, but it isn't, and the idea of killing things as a form of recreation just doesn't resonate with me. Implication: I don't need to own a weapon for hunting purposes.
Some folks own weapons just because they like to shoot them for no particular reason. Again, I could enjoy going to a shooting range, but I wouldn't need a gun of my own to go do that- I could just use the guns at the shooting range. I would definitely support an assault weapons ban that had an exception in it for shooting ranges, so that for all the people who just HAVE to get whatever thrill they get from firing semiautomatic or large-caliber guns, those people could go to a licensed, well-regulated facility to do exactly that. But there's no need for the weapons to be allowed anywhere other than licensed shooting ranges.
The bottom line: there are no activities that I would ever engage in that require me to own a gun.
2) Safety
There was an interesting piece in the NYT the other day about how gun ownership is one of the most powerful predictors of partisan voting habits. Here's the link. I mention this because I think there's been a long-run trend in the two political parties of a fundamental divergence about the nature of the future. Increasingly, the Republican party's rhetoric and underlying policy bent assumes a pretty stark version of the future. And if you buy into that premise of a stark future, then your estimate of the threat level out there is going to be a lot higher, and then your desire to have serious weaponry around your house and/or on your person at all times is going to go up.
That's why, I think, you find the trend outlined in the article of Republican gun ownership rates holding steady, while Democratic gun ownership rates are steadily declining. If you don't believe there's a threat, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from that nonexistent (at least to you, nonexistent) threat. The modern Republican party pushes a whole lot of apocalyptic rhetoric, including:
- that there is some kind of dystopian central government that any second now is going to come to take away your rights and freedoms, and probably your stuff.
- as a corollary to that, they're going to come and take your money, in the form of taxes, just to take it and build some kind of socialist hellscape.
- since they're trying to do that, we the Republican party will oppose any kind of tax for any reason, which hey, just happens to primarily benefit really rich people, but whatever- that's just coincidence. Of course, if we keep benefiting rich people, and socking it to the poor people, who, let's face it, there are a *lot* more of, then eventually those poor people are probably going to get pissed off and come for us, so we rich people better grab for everything we can right now, before the party is over and the mob is at the gate. And when they are, we'd better be armed to the teeth to hold them off.
- The deficit is going to lead to a massive collapse of the dollar, the world economy, and possibly civilization. The only way to stop it is to screw old people and the poor. The fact that the evil Democrats have refused to do this only emphasizes the need to arm yourself to protect against the coming fiscal collapse. It's right around the corner, we swear. Never mind that inflation is low, borrowing costs for the federal government are lower than at any point in history, and that most of the deficit stems from either GDP operating at below its productive capacity, or the Bush-era tax cuts, which mostly benefited the wealthy... never mind all those things. THERE IS A CRISIS ABOUT TO HAPPEN AND YOU MUST PREPARE YOURSELF!
- There's a war on Christmas, and religious freedom in general. Never mind that Christmas shit is up before *Thanksgiving* these days, and you can't go *anywhere* without hearing annoying Christmas music, there's a war, a war I tell you! Best to join the fight against the oppressors, and arm yourself just in case.
- All those people out there who voted for the Democrat, they're "takers". They "want stuff". They "want things". Probably your things. Arm yourself wherever you go, so you can protect yourself from the "takers".
Once you've been immersed in this apocalyptic vision long enough, the world becomes a dark, threatening place. And with all those threats out there, of course you'd want to protect yourself. Of course you'd want to be armed. I mean, if I thought the zombie apocalypse was actually right around the corner, my garage would look like an army supply depot. But here's the thing:
There's no reason to believe an apocalypse is about to happen.
I have this argument with my brother all the time, who is convinced the economy is imminently going to implode because of the national debt. I think that perspective, while understandable, is not supported by the economic evidence. But beyond that I look in the world and I see the following things:
- By every available measure, the incidence of violence in the world is dropping. Wars, domestic violence, rape, murder, all of it is declining at the global level. There are obviously pockets, in failed states or in certain areas of certain cities, etc., but the big picture on violence is positive in the sense that it is declining, and has been for a while.
- More of the world is democratic, and democracies don't fight each other. It doesn't make any economic sense to do so. Also, lots of people in the world are no longer poor. Projections show that some time in the next couple decades, fewer than half the world's population will be poor for the first time in all of human history. Does that mean we can sit back and not care about poverty? No. But again, the macroscopic trend is good.
- We are on the cusp of some truly amazing technological advances. It's going to be really exciting to see what gets developed in the first half of the 21st century: in medicine, in communications, in energy, in space exploration.
So the big picture is: the world is (slowly, fitfully) growing more safe, not less so. Now, that still doesn't address the small picture, which is: do I bring a gun into my home, and/or do I carry one around with me wherever I go, to "protect myself". The answer is no, for the following reason:
The basic calculus you have to do is: is the risk of not having a gun and then needing it, because someone breaks in, or someone attacks you while you're out and about, greater than the risk of some kind of accident resulting from the gun? Children who grow up in homes with guns have a dramatically higher probability of injury or death resulting from an accident with a firearm than do children who grow up in homes without guns. Do you want to expose your children to that added risk? The answer is yes only if you believe that the external threats/risks are even greater. And that's why I don't have one, and likely never will- because I don't believe the external threats are greater.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying that there's zero risk out there in the world. Murders still happen. Rapes still happen. Assaults still happen. Mentally ill people still walk into public places and start spraying the area. But, I believe the evidence suggests that people are basically good, and getting better, and that the world is basically good, and getting better, and that guns will always add more risk than they take away. For that reason, I will not allow them in my home, and I will wholeheartedly support sensible gun-control regulation that balances the philosophical reality of having the 2nd Amendment with the practical reality of needing to all coexist in a reasonably safe way.
Balance. Balance is the key. I don't think we have balance today with our gun-control policies, but I'm hoping that these tragic events of the past several months will finally move us in that direction.
