Is Gun Control the Answer?

Little Green Footballs has a good article by Ted Nugent today on the stupidity of gun control laws. Nugent points to examples where gun owners, in the presence of crazy murderers, were unable to protect those who were slain because of gun control laws. The potential heroes owned guns, but did not have access to them at the crucial moment.

Gun advocates (of which I'm one) argue that the Virginia Tech maniac was bold in his homicidal rage because he knew that Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone" and that none of his victims would be able to shoot back. If right to carry laws existed at Virginia Tech and handgun ownership was common there, would the maniac have been so lethal or so brave? Perhaps, but the odds are that he would have been dead much sooner, and not by his own hand.

As a conservative with a convoluted way of thinking, it seems to me that liberals, in order to stop predators from killing people, seek to disarm their prey, thus rendering them defenselses and making the killer's mission that much easier. In other words, if bad guys have guns, let's redress the situation by making sure good guys don't.

Of course, if guns were completely absent from our society, there would be no gun deaths. Is such a thing even possible? The government could confiscate guns on sight and outlaw gun manufacturing and import, but illegal guns could (and would) continue to come into the country, just as cocaine and marijuana and other illegal items. It isn't possible to totally eradicate guns.

But let's say all the guns were substantially eliminated. Now robbers and thugs and maniacs would have to find other ways to kill efficiently, but it is doubtful there is anything as efficient as handguns. They are easily transportable, easily operated and easily concealed. Also, operation is fairly simple, just point and pull the trigger. Would violent crime decrease with the absence of guns? Or would it increase because now robbers and thugs and maniacs know in advance that storekeepers and homeowners are disarmed and easy prey?

Guns are a great equalizer. If some burglar or would-be rapist breaks into a house and confronts a smaller and weaker woman, she has the power (via her handgun) to equalize or neutralize the difference in body strength and size. That's one of the good uses of guns - saving innocent lives, both through correct usage and through deterrance: if a thug knows that you may be armed, he probably won't try to make you his victim.

Then there's the use of guns to deter tyranny. Considering the number of groups who hate American democracy and wish to replace it with some tyranny (Communism, Sharia, or what-have-you), I take comfort in owning a handgun. It is my protection against sudden-Jihad syndrome.

I take my handgun very seriously. It's an old 1911 Army Cold 45. It's black and looks just like the one Al Pacino was playing with in Scent of a Woman. It is heavy and cold in my hand and it is lethal as hell. I have never pointed it at another human being and would only do so in a situation where my life was threatened. I am totally aware that pulling the trigger is an irreversible act. If you shoot someone, you can't take it back. I value human life very deeply so I look at my handgun as a tool of last resort. Holding it doesn't make me feel like Rambo - if anything, it fills me with dread. I hope I never kill another human being. It would be a heavy burden for my soul to carry. Yet, if some maniac starts shooting in my direction, well then it's better him than me.

There's a saying among gun owners about the use of deadly force against an attacker: "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

I bought my gun lawfully in California. I had to take a test on gun laws and gun safety and undergo a background check before I could get my handgun. To prepare for it, I read a book on California's gun laws - and they provide for heavy penalties for violations of the law. Do you know that flashing a gun at another driver on the road is a felony in California? So if someone cuts you off on the freeway, flip him the bird instead. That's still legal, as my sunburned middle finger will attest.

My feeling is that gun control is not the answer to random acts of violence like the Virginia Tech shootings. Gun education, training and licensing is. Every adult should be trained in the use, maintenance, safe operation and storage of guns, both handguns and rifles. It should be a required course in school. I would venture a guess that most gun deaths occur from accidents and gun ignorance than by deliberate acts.

If you know all about guns, they lose their mystery while instilling respect. More gun education is needed, including some hours loading and shooting them at a gun range. I would also like to see a gun ethics program instituted to go along with the operational and safety training. What are proper uses of guns and what are not? The answers may seem inherently obvious to most of us, but it is dangerous to ever assume anything. Let's spell it out for gun students, including the reality that guns are not a more realistic video game. The people or animals you may shoot with a gun don't reboot for the next game. Reality must be drummed into the heads of those who want to own and operate firearms.

In short, the way to tame the gun beast is to embrace him, understand him and learn to ride him. Fear and ignorance in this area are counter productive and can be lethal.

A well-armed society is a polite, tolerant and free one with a lower crime rate. And that's not a bad thing.