Like every thinking and feeling
American, I’ve had my heart broken by Sandy Hook, as well as by all the other
mass (and a lot of the minor) shootings in the last few decades. Sandy Hook wasn’t the final straw for me, but
I’m glad to see that it was for a lot of people. I’ve personally wanted to see some changes
for a long time.
My background is this. I grew up an Army Brat. My
father served in Vietnam. On one of the bases,
the house in which we lived was a little too close to the firing range, if you
take my meaning. During my teen years we
settled in rural Virginia, another area where guns were commonplace. I took rifle safety as part of my Health and
PE class, and the first day of hunting was a school holiday. Everywhere I went, everyone I knew had
guns. I don’t fear guns, nor do I
believe they are inherently evil. I do have
a healthy respect for what they can do, and what they were intended to do,
however. Even as a child, I realized, as
I saw eyes, fingers, and songbirds lost to BB guns, that there are no fun games
to play with guns. They were meant to
destroy, whether accidentally, in self defense or in aggression. Every year, some hunter would be mistaken for
a deer, or some angry drunk would shoot up his family up in the hollers.
Moving along, I took up the family
line of medicine. I’m a third generation
nurse, since my father’s medical education took up most of my young life, and I’m
just not that patient. I work in the OR
at the regional trauma center. When I
first started, almost 30 years ago, on Friday nights, the drunks in bars would
get in fights, and we spent a lot of time on the weekends fixing broken
mandibles from fistfights. Sometimes,
broken bottles were involved, or ball bats, and the flesh wounds were
startling. The plastics service was
pretty busy on the weekend, back in the day.
In the last 15 years, I’ve hardly ever seen a broken mandible from a bar
fight. Seems people don’t bother with
fists anymore, they go straight for the hardware, and it’s not unusual to have
3 or 4 GSW’s hit the OR on a weekend. Plus, we only get the ones that don’t
miss and hit major organs, or big vessels.
If the shooter nabs a leg or arm, you can be treated elsewhere, because we’re usually busy with all the other
ways people can get hurt: car wrecks, aneurysms, etc. I’m not prepared to argue the demographics of
this. We have a markedly different population, and a larger one, than we did 30
years ago. I have no idea what the actual
numbers of gun ownership are in the greater Seattle area. I’m just pointing out my biases, and a trend
I’ve personally noticed.
For the interests of this blog, when
referring to the two sides of the gun debate, I’m just going to say free access
and controlled access, though I realize that for most people, their opinions
are more nuanced. It’s just that I
personally find “pro and anti” more inflammatory.
Over the years, as I’ve discussed
gun control with various people I’ve noticed a couple of trends.
One is that the free access folks
overwhelmingly want to explain to me what each kind of weapon is, actually,
what those words mean, as a part of the debate.
I would have been an English major if I could have made a living with
that, and I love words, and definitions, but that stuff makes my brain hurt, in
part because in every blog thread, and conversation, the definitions change
just a tiny bit, based on the voice of the conversant. Here’s what I have to say to that: I get that the language is important. I've
been involved in any number of threads where someone focuses on why we can't
ban "assault" weapons because they don't exist, or it would mean
banning all guns, or whatever. But that's a strategy of distraction, isn't it?
Because the point isn't really whether or not concerned people have got the right name for the dangerous weapon, the point is, shouldn’t we try to control how many people can own some or all dangerous weapons, and if so, which ones?
When those questions become bills, legislative
wonks can assure that the language will be correct. We need to do that to ensure that there aren’t
gaping loopholes as well as to ensure that the actual “dangerous weapons” are
removed from circulation. I get it. But for the purposes of casual conversation,
I have to wonder, is the actual difference between an AK-47 and an "AK-47
like device" something I need to commit to memory in order to know that
unstable and angry people shouldn't have access to them?
These same people like to make a big
deal about “assault weapon” being a word someone made up during the Clinton
administration. To which I say, “big
deal”. Words get made up all the time. Some
idiot made up “fiscal cliff” right after the election, and we won’t hear the
end of that one for a while. Besides,
the NRA has gone and changed “gun free zone” into some sort of cosmic concept,
instead of a sign. They make it sound as
if “no parking zones” could be transported off the streets and around the world
at random. We shouldn’t need to post “gun
free zone” on elementary schools. I
agree that this is ridiculous, but not for the same reason as the NRA. Guns
have nothing to do with learning, and no place there. “No Skateboarding” at least makes sense. Kids are always taking skateboards places and
causing damage and distraction, because kids should have skateboards. But who seriously arms their 6 year old? The
problem isn’t the sign; it’s the societal attitudes that make it necessary.
While we’re on the NRA and schools,
their response to Sandy Hook was absurd.
Apparently, Wayne La Pierre hasn’t been to school much lately. VA Tech had a whole police department, as do
most universities. Columbine had a
police officer, as do most High Schools and Middle Schools. At least my kids’ High and Middle schools
have resource officers. Even their
elementary school had a drop in liaison officer. They’re put in place by local
law enforcement as a deterrent, as a resource, and so there is a recognizable
face who knows the turf if things go badly.
The thing is, this is one guy.
High Schools are huge. Are we
gonna put one in every classroom? If the
shit goes down, it goes down fast. Who
will pay for this? Or should we just
take the money from the History budget, because we learned nothing from the
cold war, so we needn’t bother to teach it?
Since when has an arms buildup stopped anything? And the notion of armed volunteers responding
is even more ludicrous. Hyped up
citizens used to be called lynch mobs, not helpful task forces.
I love that we are finally hearing
about support for mental health. Not the
NRA notion that we blacklist those with issues, but that perhaps we should
better fund programs that have taken it in the teeth since the 60’s. I would love to see counseling, prescription,
coverage, inpatient care extensions, and all of that, given teeth. I think it’s high time we tried to stem the
flow of people going out of society, and helped folks to remain sociable,
employable, and contributing. Working in
what is essentially a charitable hospital, these people are my clients. Many of them could have benefitted from
programs such as the ones being suggested now for the children, and many could
still benefit from some of the adult ones.
Will it absolutely stop another
tragedy, though? No. Hopefully, it will reduce the number of angry
and disaffected people roaming the country, but you can’t force someone into
therapy. Therapy is a process that comes
from within, from wanting to change. You
can’t force feed psychotropic meds, and even if you could, there’s no guarantee
that they will provide the desired effect.
Some people, are, as my grandma would call them, bad seed. Don’t believe me? Google the Tuba Man killers here in
Seattle. Those kids are bad.
I look at these mass tragedies:
Sandy Hook, Columbine, Ft. Hood, the malls, Aurora theatre, too many to
mention. I see the smaller ones,
too. Kids in the ghettos, people caught
in the crossfire at intersections, or at drive by shootings, Gang culture, with
its need for revenge, meth heads, random armed and angry people with short
tempers and bad judgment: what do they
have in common? They have weapons. Call me a dreamer, but take away the guns,
and most of these bad things are exponentially less likely to happen.
I know. All of the free access people on the threads
and conversations, and blogs have eagerly explained to me why This. Will. Never.
Work.
People would bury their rapid fire guns
rather than turn them in. Let them. If the gun is buried in the back yard, your
unstable child will have a harder time taking it in a fit of rage. And if/when it’s unburied, maybe it won’t
work, all rusty and dirty. Besides, that
marks those folks pretty clearly as to where they stand, doesn’t it?
People have already stockpiled
enough rapid fire rounds to fuel a shootout of Quentin Tarrantino proportions. Fine.
We start somewhere. Those with
stockpiles will have to choose to stop playing with their guns and keep their
bunkers, or sell at a profit on the black market, or participate in the
buyback, or use it up and see what happens.
Either way, we stop selling the stuff.
Am I the only one who thinks it’s a little crazy to be stockpiling that
kind of ammo? Did they think the Mayans
were right, and we are facing Doomsday, or do they really believe they
personally are the thin red line that’s keeping the government from becoming
tyrannical? Because, if it’s the latter,
I have news for them: Heavily armed
loose cannons like yourself are more likely to create oppressive laws than the
opposite. Most people look at the bunkers
created by the likes of Peter Keller, and think,” Damn, I’m glad he’s not my
neighbor!”
Which brings me to my next favorite
argument from the free access crowd: I’m
the good guy. It usually comes from someone
who has played with and trained with guns forever, and is a self taught, or
military/ law enforcement trained former something. Strangely, none of these experts are on any
legit organization’s payroll now; they all operate as independents, training
anyone who wants to learn about gun usage and gun safety from someone who
really knows. Often they will have
offered free training to this or that group because they’re “that kind of
person” (Or maybe because they’re short paying customers, and really need to
get the message out?). You will always find this or a similar phrase in the
blog or thread: “if the shit really
comes down, you would want me next to you”.
These people frighten me as much as the shooters. Why?
It’s because they really want to see some action. They seem to have some Wild West fantasy
about being the guy in the gap, the one who will save the day. The people I know who are responsible about
guns understand that in a shootout, they could actually die too. They understand that in a shootout, innocent people
can die in the crossfire. Responsible
gun owners don’t want the gun battle.
They want a peaceful solution to the standoff.
Of course we have to talk about self
defense. I have good friends who pack,
because they believe that having a gun makes them safer. They practice shooting on a regular basis, and
firmly believe they could shoot to kill.
Good for them.
That is not me. I am not convinced I could shoot to kill, to
begin with, even if my life was threatened.
My boys’ lives, maybe, but now we’re splitting hairs. I didn’t like my firearms safety class in the
7th grade, or any of the gun tables at the summer Army Expos where
we got to jump off parachute towers and eat fried grasshoppers. If someone demanded my wallet, I’d give it to
them. I own nothing worth my life. Our house was robbed when I was pregnant with
my youngest, and that was not fun. So we
have a home alarm system, and we use it.
But I don’t live in fear. I go
where I want to go, I do what I want to do.
I could just as easily get hit by a bus as attacked by some gun toting
madman. No way am I devoting any of my
precious time to a gun range on the off chance of that. And no way would I own a gun if I didn’t.
Too many people don’t take the time
to practice, or do the safety things with their guns, though, no matter what
the laws in their states say. And those
laws are not enforced. We’ve had too
many kids in this area shot by family weapons- -some owned by police officers,
who should know better! Gun safety: such an interesting term. I had a boyfriend, a long time ago, who was a
gun enthusiast. He was from a war torn
region, and an avid hunter. He was
smart, and funny, but paranoid enough from his childhood that he slept with a
handgun under his pillow. I finally
convinced him that I couldn’t sleep with a gun that close to my head, even if
he showed me the safety, and he agreed to put it on the night table. I never slept well, though, and our
relationship didn’t last.
Because isn’t part of gun safety not
just the knowing how to manage guns, but knowing how to manage yourself? My friend with the handgun under his pillow
had a bit of a temper. One of my dear
free access friends has his temper managed, but has children with quick tempers
whom he has taught to shoot, and given guns.
None of the people mentioned here has mental issues, or drinking
problems, but where do we draw the line?
Adolescents have a known decrease in judgment. Should we put their gun rights on hold until
they get sane again? My boys were
forbidden to play at friends’ houses if they knew or found out that the friend’s
family owned guns. I didn’t think my
boys would do anything stupid, but you never know. After all, you never know who else would be
over. I reminded my boys of this the
other day, and they started listing off friends of theirs who we couldn’t have
allowed to play here had we owned guns, because of those boys’ poor judgment. Great kids, mind you, they were just the ones
who required a little extra supervision:
“put down the ladder and the sheet”, “no, kitchen knives stay in the
kitchen,” and so on.
Boys, they just want to have fun, and
think climbing on the roof with a sheet might be fun. They need a stable hand around to keep them
from doing that. We expect parents to do
that for their children, and their children’s friends. But once we grow up, we seem to lose that
idea of collective responsibility. I don’t
understand the attitude from the free access people is that because so many
stable people have “fun” shooting the crap out of something, we have to make
those weapons accessible to anyone who might have “fun” with it, no matter
whether we can prove they are stable or not.
Here’s an idea: let the fun-loving folks keep their fun
weapons, locked up in the ranges where they practice. You can only buy the ammo there, and it can
never leave the building. Have all the
fun you want where no one else can get hurt.
If you’re going to a meet at another range, the ranges do the transport
of weapons. My apologies to all the
folks who wanted to shoot up the refrigerators and old cars in the woods. Maybe y’all can make your own range. It’d be good to clean up the woods anyway.
So, how then, do we control gun
access, in a fair and reasonable way? I
think starting with what I like to call the really dangerous ones is good. Guns that fire too many rounds too quickly
are dangerous in my opinion, no matter what shape they take. The whole “all guns are semi automatic”
argument” can be more or less answered with the number of rounds in your clip,
right? Even if loading a clip is a
single two second action, it does require you to look away from that class of
first graders for an instant. And if you
have 10 bullets instead of a hundred, you’ll have to do that several times,
which adds us to maybe 20 seconds, which can be more than you realize. How long did it take for the guys on flight
93 to jump the hijacker? Or, you have to go in with 10 Bushmasters instead of
2. Free access people spend a lot of time
talking about the psychology of the shooters, how they are cowards, and if some
brave armed person stands up to them they back down. Well, how about if we make it so that they
are always vulnerable in the first place?
What if they know they could be a target every time they have to reload?
I’m personally not nearly as interested in stopping the next shooter as in
preventing the next shooter from ever getting started.
One of my friends has proposed a solution,
not unlike Chris Rock’s comedy routine, regarding the bullets. Tax the ammo, tax the guns, on a sliding
scale of dangerousness. That would be great
for making money, not so great for increasing the economic divide. Should only rich people get to have “assault
rifles”? Or are we assuming that only
poor people have mental issues (excluding the crowned heads of Europe,
obviously)? Please, don’t mistake
me. I want to make money off this vice,
same as booze and cigarettes and all the other things we do that harm us. Let’s just be sure we do it fairly.
See, here is my simplistic view of “dangerous
guns”. If its primary purpose is to kill
a lot of people very quickly, it’s dangerous.
If you can use it to hunt with, but could just as easily use a smaller,
less dangerous gun, why not do that? If
you want to have a handgun, for personal safety, how many rounds do you really
need to have? Exactly. Leave the really big clips for the really bad
guys.
And now we come to the mother of all
arguments: Bad guys will get guns anyway.
Absolutely, they will. No question
about it, bad guys will be armed. And
then you will know that he is a bad guy, and not some self-styled cowboy riding
in on his F150 to save the day. When Al
Capone was ruling Chicago, no one had to wonder if that guy in the fancy suit
with the big gun was maybe just out for a walk.
They got out of his way. It
should always be that easy, not like in VA, where you can bring your gun to
dinner at the fancy restaurants. Nothing
says relaxing date night out like open carry.
I’m not talking about the gun rack in the back of the beat up pickup on
grandpa’s farm. I’m talking about
shoulder holsters at the Space Needle!
Is this really the kind of world we want? I think I can speak for the majority of the
controlled access crowd when I say “No”.
So we pay the good guys to turn dangerous
guns in. Yes, only law abiding citizens
will take advantage of that opportunity, and chiselers, who will try to make
the Bucks for Bazookas program as ugly as Cash for Clunkers. And, the bad guys will always have guns. Every
time a bad guy is caught, we can take his gun, too.
But this is the thing: every day there
will be fewer guns out there! There will
be fewer guns for people’s friends and children and strangers to steal and use in
heinous crimes. There will be fewer guns
for overwrought folks to use in suicide attempts, and fewer guns for people to
turn on their own families in fits of rage.
How is that not a good thing?
This isn’t an overnight fix. This is a process. It will take generations to change the
attitudes we have created. It will take
generations to stabilize mental health: after all we have left it go for
decades. It will take years to find the
right balance in the legislation: but
doesn’t it always? We try something,
amend it, try again. Thus it has always
been. The point is in the trying, the
beauty of our system is that we don’t make forever laws. We can try again.
We all agree that the things done
with guns are awful. Why is it so hard to
see that the outcomes would be harder to achieve without the guns? I’m willing to let the courts decide what our
actual second amendment rights are. In
my opinion, they don’t include owning dangerous guns, and enough ammo rounds to
fuel a small war. But I’m old fashioned
in my belief that sometimes the rights of the individual have to bow to the
rights of society as a whole. And
whatever the NRA might say, with all the guns out there, I have never felt less
safe .
Pour me another round, bartender
Dry Gin Martini
