What if it were me...?

So, not too long ago, I was prompted to rant (something I almost never do ;<)) when listening to Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz talking about "sensible" gun laws.  Let me be honest - I have listened to these two talkers for years and have often been simpatico with some of their views.  But I became so repelled by their misinformed and misinforming rhetoric on firearms, that it made me realize how much they hype all things liberal just as Hannity and others hype all things conservative.  I suggest to everyone to find an issue on which you fervently disagree with the pundits you cling to; it will open your eyes to how all of them are manipulating us.

So, anyway, in reaction to this rant, my wife became upset, thinking that I might be turning into a conservative Nazi or something (shit, she's only known me for 25 years - what's left to learn?).  God forbid I not toe the line on all issues liberal.  One of the questions she asked me in relation to "sensible" gun laws was "What if it was me that was killed?  What would you think then?"  Well, that would suck.  I'd be pissed and would ask why didn't you have your pistol with you on the tragic day you needed it?  After all, since she has a license to carry, I can only assume that if she were killed that easily, she must have been in a gun-free zone.  So when I tearfully testify in front of Congress with her picture next to me, my major question for them will be why couldn't she be legally armed in that place?  Just as with Newtown, tell me how the rule against being armed protected anyone?  How did the laws in CT protect anyone? 

I told her long ago that if I am ever killed in an active shooter situation on campus where I work (we have had a few campus alerts in recent years), that she needs to sue the pants off of the state and university and whoever else did not allow me to carry the firearm I am legally licensed to carry and defend myself.  I do not expect police to protect me - I know they can't and they know it, too.  I am not paranoid; I am prepared.  Their answer is to disarm me; my answer is to let me take care of myself.  If I am killed by an assailant on a day I am disarmed by our government, who will be responsible?  When I lose my right to protect myself at the door, who is responsible for me?

This is what liberals like Maddow and Schultz do not get; their answer to violence is capitulation, their fantasy is that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will magically reduce violent crime.  Quite frankly, I am not a criminal.

All about the guns...and the games...and the internet...

So, now we begin to hear that Adam Lanza wanted to imitate or even outdo Anders Brevik, that he honed his skills and desensitized what bit of humanity he may have ever had to the idea of killing by playing violent video games.  So, we have an already troubled young man, seemingly devoid of social connection and empathy, exposure to media and Internet details about what another sociopath did, and the access to games that can both train him and desensitize him to killing others.  We have a mother who, while perhaps trying anything to connect to him in some way, both allowed him to practice with and have access to her firearms.

And THEY keep saying it was all about the guns?

These people are out there.  Brevik could find people to feed his paranoia.  Lanza could find examples to follow, a way to be come relevant in a world that didn't give a shit about him.  The Internet allows them to find each other and learn from each other.  Parents are living with and raising children like this with little support and while they may do the best they can, there are going to be less than desirable outcomes.  Sometimes their answer to to allow the child to sink into a fantasy world.  Video games bring that world of virtual surreality to them, on their surface much like those simulations that law enforcement and military use for training.  With them, the budding killer creates skills, becomes desensitized to killing and can engage in sick fantasies blurring the line of reality and surreality, between a virtual and a real world.

And THEY keep saying it is all about the guns?

I ask again...

Why isn't one of the millions of legally-armed law-abiding civilians who have thwarted a crime or successfully protected themselves or others from violence being invited?  Pandering perhaps?  This is why gun-owners see victim disarmament as part of a larger ploy.



No tragedy will go unexploited.

Why not a gun-wielding crime survivor?

Why not a gun-wielding survivor of criminal assault?

So we read that Nancy Pelosi will invite a "gun violence survivor" to attend the SOTU with her.  I am sure the Preseident will dutifully note this - perhaps even sit anotehr next to his wife. 

My only question is why not bring a gun owner who successfully used their firearm to defend against a criminal assault?  Perhaps a young mother who used her handgun to defend herself and her children?  Perhaps the teacher in Detroit who protected himself?  Perhaps the resrouces officer wo prevented a potential school massacre in Atlanta?  Any one out there in congress who might like to show that not all gun owners and guns are evil, and demonstrate, as the research shows, that guns are used more often to protect against crime than they are to commit crime?

Someone, somehow, needs to show the other side of this story.

If the NRA and other second amendment groups seem militant, perhaps it is because they see their rights and culture being threatened.  It is worth considering that some see NARAL and Planned Parenthood militant in defending what they see as a right and culture.  Clearly one can agree or disagree with the culture in either instance – although also as clearly, neither is so pure.  Some find either an abomination, while others feel they are defenders of rights and choice.

It is no surprise that Americans are ethnocentric – both around the world and right in their own neighborhood.  Most people are sure that their way is the only way, the right way.  Some people cling to their abortions and sexuality, while others cling to their God and guns.  This is the modern history of our nation; on one hand we dedicate a month to celebrating diversity, while on the other we continually work to squash it.  It might be worth noting that the percentage of Americans who say they own guns is greater than the percent that are Hispanic or African-American.

But the great divide here is not one of preventing harm v. not caring for the victims of tragedy.  The difference is a deep-seated cultural one - those who hate guns and those who own them and see them as the root of the problem, see banning guns as a way to try to change a culture they do not share or value.  Those who own them rightly see this as an assault on their culture.  They are also likely to see the acceptance of abortion and gayness as the death knell of a nation, while those who support such life choices and lifestyles, see efforts to eliminate them as an assault on their culture.

In fact, this current gun rights debate has surprising similarities to the ongoing abortion debates, even if the roles are reversed.  Just like it is not accurate to talk about pro-life and pro-abortion, it is inaccurate to couch this debate as anti-gun v. pro-violence.  Just as no one favors abortions, but wants freedom to choose, no one favors murder, but does favor freedom to choose.  So in the abortion debate, the dynamic might just as easily be captured as pro-choice and anti-choice.   With firearms, the same distinction can be made; there are those who prefer to limit others’ lawful freedom and those who want to maintain that freedom. 

It is interesting that the love of freedom, of the right to choose, is a universal American phenomenon; everyone cherishes their freedom.  What is troubling is that they do not cherish others' freedoms.  All freedoms have potential undesirable consequences - hence the notion of responsibility.  But if one wants freedom, they must grant freedom.  The loss of any one freedom is the first step in the loss of all freedom.  Of course, when the NRA says this, they are seen as extreme - it is step one in the slippery slope.  Yet pro-choice proponents makethe same argument when anti-choice forces use tactics to limit the right to choose, the first step toward prohibition.  Different goals, same argument - because of a cultural divide.  It is also interesting, as an aside, that the ACLU so adroitly parses words in a way that denies support for the individual liberty affirmed by the second amendment; they support an individual right not specifically enshrined in the Bill of Rights – that of abortion choice - yet deny another that is. 

How is it that some people view the negative reactions of others to abortion and homosexuality with such incredulity ("How can they want to limit our freedom?") yet cannot see why gun owners are so incredulous at those same people’s opinions on guns?  How is it that the answer to those who say “Having a firearm is my right and part of my culture” is ridicule, yet saying that “Having sex and then having an abortion is okay” is somehow acceptable?  How is it that “Only a crazy person thinks they need to have a gun” is considered a reasoned judgment, but “Only an immoral person kills the unborn” or “Only an immoral person would have sex with a same sex partner” is not?  How is it that polls that suggest a disapproval of gay rights or abortion rights are dismissed because we do not vote on basic freedoms, yet polls on gun rights are constantly cited as a justificaiton to limit this basic freedom? (80% of people are in favor of it so it is the right thing to do).

I will tell you – as someone who watches and is often disgusted by both sides of this argument  as they is displayed in the media – there is no one who has a monopoly on the crazy here. Watching each side be holier than thou is a sad display of why there are no cures for what ails us.  I am in favor of freedom – that we not limit the rights of the many for the foolishness of the few who abuse those rights.  I am straight, so the freedom to choose a same-sex spouse is irrelvant to me - still I understand its value to some people.  Non-gun owners might want to consider this when forming their own opinions as well.  Freedom is not jsut about what we want to do.