Okay in Part One I think we established a reason why "more bullets" might be better than fewer bullets. With my snub-nosed revolver I have five and the caliber is .38. Honestly there is not much "stopping power" in my revolver -- again that is why I practice shooting and it is why I have hollow point bullets in it. Ack! Hollow points? Sounds pretty nasty doesn't it? The odds of any of my shots actually hitting my target is low. So IF only one makes contact it MUST have as much stopping power as possible.
The other thing that most people never, ever consider simply because they don't know is that a hollow point bullet mushrooms upon impact. That is why it causes damage -- it makes a bigger hole than just an unchanged or "whole" bullet would. That ALSO protects innocent bystanders. Upon "mushrooming" is slows the bullet down and does not allow it to "pass through". If a bullet can simply pass through an object it 1) often just creates a little hole in the first object (or person) causing little damage unless it hits something vital and 2) It still has the velocity to continue on and strike another object or person. We know from Part I even if I hit something vital, short of the spinal column, my attacker often still has lots of time left to inflict damage on me.
So we have that element of "why more bullets is better" covered. I would like to have at least 15 rounds in a clip for personal protection and now to at least some degree I hope I have explained why that is not unreasonable nor is it "redneck" or "gun happy". It is the reality of the need when presented with it. When people ask "why would you own a gun that was specifically designed to kill a person?" My answer is because people pose the biggest threat to me. If I ever have to fire on a person -- my intent must be to stop them by any means possible. A deer rifle is not designed to stop a person -- I want a weapon that is.
People rarely "stockpile" guns -- the ones that do, make headlines and we both know what that does to public perception. It is a term used that is generally laced with innuendo and of course political charge. The term connotes someone building an arsenal for nefarious reasons. Many people do collect guns and people like me are getting them, "while we still can." Government -- whether Republican or Democrat -- is insidiously taking away freedoms and rights… Since 9/11 so many have allowed this to happen for the sake of "national security". The UN Small Arms Treaty possibly being signed on July 27th is a big deal to gun owners. It is, in essence, a beginning to at least attempt to transfer power FROM our government to an International body that does NOT govern us nor does it have the US as its primary focus and/or interest. It doesn't seem like a big deal to people who don't own or care to own guns but to us it is a huge threat and the first step at the idea of disarming Americans. The UN does not represent the United States and any transfer of power or governance TO them away from our own government is putting our needs as a nation, second, or worse.
I personally would like to pick up a few more weapons. Why now? Again, I want to do it while I still can. Most of us who are staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment have seen our rights eroded and eroded. It is harder and harder to buy and possess legal firearms. When news stories like the one in Aurora come out the impression the "world" gets is that anyone can amble up to a counter anywhere and purchase a weapon. That is simply not true. Gun control advocates often demand "we need gun control" when in reality many mean we need to ban guns. When I purchased a rifle for my boyfriend I had to go through a thorough CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) report. If you are a law abiding citizen it doesn't take long -- a couple of hours maybe a few more. But they check everything and I am now on record as owning that firearm -- they know where I live, they know where I work, they know what I do, they have my fingerprints. When I get pulled over the officer knows as he is doing it that I have a permit to carry. I am in many, many databases and have very little privacy from government. As a law abiding citizen who has NO record of ANY bad behavior, is that right? Why should they know all that about me and not about anyone else? I know that guns are scary but see if from my perspective if you can -- Big Brother really IS watching me.
Since the Brady Law was enacted instant background checks have been a mandate -- More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials. (FBI.gov website). Things like "transfer taxes" are imposed -- it costs a gun buyer or seller (depends on who agrees to foot the bill) of a "used" weapon a $200 "transfer tax" when they sell a firearm, no matter what the price of the firearm -- and this is a private transaction. What right does the government have in imposing such arbitrary fee to a private transaction? When you sell your car you don't have to pay that unless you want to drive it on publically funded roadways and you register it. The registration fee covers in part -- your use of the roadways. A car is far more deadly than a gun. I can and will if you want provide you a list of all of the restrictions and requirements in buying a selling firearms -- but for now, just know that it is not that simple and as you can see, more people have been denied (70% of them) than approved. Lastly, and probably the most challenging to convey is our distrust of government. I don't trust government and I REALLY don't trust a government who is trying to or wants to disarm me.
"Second Amendment rights" versus "more gun control", it's a debate that has gone on and will go on for years. Neither side can fathom why the other feels the way they do. What is true is that it is fueled by emotion and fear. I fear my government and the other side fears my guns. As a supporter of my right to bear arms I put real stock in my ability and my right to protect myself and feel genuinely threatened when anyone talks about taking it away. The vast, vast, VAST majority of legal owners of firearms never commit a crime much less one with a gun -- yet the few that do, affect the nation's perception of all of us and want to penalize ALL of us for those random and statistically infrequent occurrences. As a person trained to use a firearm -- it is a great choice for self protection. Those who oppose the right to bear arms think guns kill people. People kill people. Let me ask -- do you feel safer because your friend, your neighbor has weapons and knows how to use them or do you feel threatened because he has them? Most, almost all of us, who own guns are "your neighbor".
If you were to believe the media you might think that firearm related crimes were an epidemic. They are not. Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993. From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds. In 1993 there were 1,054,820 non-fatal firearm related crimes. In 2009 there were 326,090 non-fatal firearm related crimes. The rate of victimization in 1993 was 5.9 people in 1000 -- in 2009 it was 1.4 in a thousand. That means that you have a .14% chance of being a victim. Not epidemic. Of course when "Aurora" happens all rationale and attention paid to the real numbers goes away because we are all emotional beasts. We are rushing out to buy guns because we want to protect ourselves from "Aurora" and the other side is clamoring to bans guns to protect ourselves from "Aurora". My desire to buy more is rooted in fear of my government -- an emotion, I know, but a trend that is insidious and I believe on a trajectory. I can only make decisions on what I believe to be true or not true and I do as much homework as I can to avoid being purely emotional about it.
I understand though -- for someone who is not familiar with guns, they are scary. They are unknown and in untrained hands they are dangerous. But the response to guns by the media and many in America is purely an emotional one. I wish every American owned a gun and knew how to use it.
Let's look at some statistics to get perspective. Forty-eight point five (it's math, I know you can't have .5 of a person) people die from lightening strikes while playing golf every year. But on average 1 person a year in the U.S. is killed by a shark. We have a much more emotional reaction to sharks than we do golf -- but statistically golf is much more dangerous. Sharks are scary, golf is not. There has never been a Hollywood movie about "deadly golf"; there is not a "Golf Week" on The Discovery Channel every year. Golf doesn't scare us. Heck more people a year are killed by vending machines falling over on them than they are killed by sharks! A far greater number of people in America are viciously attacked by deer than they are bears -- but bears scare us more. Thirty-one people a year are killed by pet dogs -- on average one person a year is killed by a mountain lion -- which is scarier? Our emotions color how we feel about things -- they ARE what we feel about things and so often we make decisions or base "rational" on them; it is not a rational thing to do.
There have been 278 revolutions in the world since 1900 alone. There are 198 countries in the world (give or take over time). It probably never will happen in the United States but with those numbers I am going to be certain that my government, no matter how much I like them, does not get my firearms. Call it an insurance policy. It is an insurance policy when a thug wonders if he should mug and rape me and it is an insurance policy when a government begins to feel omnipotent. Do I have the delusion that if it came down to "the people" vs. "the government", me and my squirrel gun would have a chance? Of course not. But it is my hope that globally our government would not want to risk that. Sounds crazy? Ask the 278 countries that fought a revolution in the last 100+ years.
So yes, I fear my government and it is a healthy fear. Because of that I am a more prudent citizen. I don't fear the revolution as much as I fear the laws around guns getting so strict that gun ownership is all but an impossibility. Once we are unarmed our "insurance policy" is gone. Then I would begin to fear my government in a new way. I don’t at all expect to convert you or to convince you to feel the way I do. I just want to let you know how "we" feel and why we are so ardent about protecting our rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment