Full disclosure: I am a proud gun owner.
The picture above displays a 1906 Pieper Arms Co. special edition something-something. It’s been handed down, more or less, for four generations, eventually landing in my hands after my mother passed a couple of years ago. To the best of my knowledge, Mom never fired it, and no one still living claims to have either. It appears to take a standard 12-gauge shell, but I would never consider loading it, because it’s a frigging antique, and it belongs on display at best, or in the back of a closet at worst. It’s quite heavy, so there’s still a few uses for it as far as personal defense – I imagine getting a stock upside the ol’ noggin wouldn’t feel too nice. But I sincerely doubt it’s going to deter a committed criminal in any capacity.
So that’s MY gun.
The horrific mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in the Uvalde, TX, so soon after the grocery store mass shooting in Buffalo, NY, has sparked predictable debates about guns, their owners, their use in law enforcement, home access to them, purchasing access to them, and, eventually, theories of mass-shooting prevention methods. Gun proponents are sticking to their guns, no pun intended, by essentially doubling down on “good guy with a gun” rhetoric and empty references to “mental health” checks (which wouldn’t have detected 50% of U.S. mass shooters of the last decade, because they exhibited no warning signs). Once again, violent video games, violent rock music, and violent TV/movies are in the crosshairs. Rather than link to a few dozen sources, I’ll just say legislative debate over the proper approach has begun in earnest, with a Congress so bitterly divided routine budget bills are subject to ugly floor behavior and a blunt disregard for opposing views, and that IS a both-sides issue. I’m not going to dive into the unacceptable response of the Uvalde police force except to say they appear to be, at minimum, beginning to acknowledge their failings this week.
(Speaking of violent video games, I recently purchased the upgraded, PS5-worthy version of Skyrim, a classic fantasy role-player FPS kind of thing that most modern gamers would scoff at but have undoubtedly played. It’s a blast. It’s also quite violent. I tend to play it when I feel angst and frustration because it allows me to channel those frustrations into virtual scenarios where no one gets hurt, and no one suffers permanent damage except those poor NPCs that fall victim to my virtual wrath. I cannot speak for all gamers or their children, but I don’t recall ever meeting anyone of any age that was so disassociated with reality they assumed video game-world rules transferred into society at large. Those that claim a “common thread” between mass shooters and violent video content are generally those that have never played a single referenced game, and have no actual interest in restricting the games their kids might be playing as long as those kids are entertained. Just food for thought.)
To be clear, I don’t like real guns and never have. I was raised in a house without guns (with the notable exception of the relic above) and was taught early on guns were for the military only. While I saw many kids my age running around mimicking shooting each other in “cowboys and indians” role playing, I never felt any regrets or envy. It just didn’t seem fun to shoot someone or something, even at age 6 or so. “Playing dead” just didn’t sound like a good time either.
I first fired an actual gun at age 12, when my great uncle was selling his mid-Kansas farm and unloading the things he deemed unnecessary to his next of kin. He owned two rifles and a revolver of some sort, and he maintained them as well as any gun owner ever does. For kicks, he let my brother and I shoot the revolver at some cans, which we duly missed widely and repeatedly. Afterwards, he showed us the bullet holes we’d inflicted on the soon-to-be-razed barn behind the cans, and we marveled over the size and depth of them. It dawned on me then, fully, how much damage a single bullet is capable of.
People grow and their views evolve. Over time, I realized some guns in the hands of private citizens were okay as long as they were designated for specific purposes, like regulated, regionalized hunting. I have a number of contacts that live in urban areas that own heavily locked-down handguns, and I can’t say I blame them much, considering street crime is as prevalent as it’s ever been (although I know of exactly one incident where one of these types actually brandished his pistol in self defense). You do hear the occasional story in the media of a robbery gone wrong that results in the citizen shooting the would-be perp. Again, occasional story. This sort of hero-laden, good-guy-with-a-gun parable is exceptionally rare, and is essentially the basis for many pro-gun stances still being discussed.
Lest it needs to be said, here, in the United States, guns are king and a gigantic for-profit business. We remain beholden to the widely-misinterpreted Second Amendment and all related sentiments, because gun owners are fervent in their belief the Founders wanted citizens to own guns, while opponents correctly point out the Second Amendment was added at a time when single-shot, flintlock-style weapons were cutting-edge. A typical AR-15 – seemingly the weapon of choice in recent mass shootings – has 300 times the shooting repetition a flintlock rifle would. It’s popular to say the Founders never envisioned killing machines of such magnitude, but it’s undoubtedly accurate. They weren’t advocating for cannons in private homes, after all.
That said, it’s in the Constitution regardless. I acknowledge “responsible” gun owners do exist; they maintain their weapons properly, keep them unloaded at home, lock them up accordingly, etc. There are many life-threatening objects in your home; properly monitored, they do not present an active threat to life and limb. This is not fiction or pandering for guns; it’s the truth. And I will support any reasonable gun owner’s stance about keeping their own long-term purchases, as long as they continue to do it safely and in accordance with existing laws. It should go without saying that pointing a gun at another human unprovoked is NOT responsible gun ownership.
But this is where I depart your company, gun folks. Assault weapons of any sort should not be in the hands of the general public, with no exceptions. They should not be available for sale anywhere, let alone between citizens at gun shows and hobby gatherings – a disturbing legislative “loophole” that’s resulted in illicit gun purchases across the country for decades. Assault weapons are intended to kill humans, and no amount of discussion or bloviation can change that undeniable reality.
If you’re buying a weapon to intentionally kill humans, perhaps you should reconsider your life priorities and call a therapist, priest or mentor, because those thoughts sure aren’t consistent with those of us that have no desire, angst or mental failing that would compel us to do such things. Regardless, our current laws would allow for legal purchases anyway as long as you have no documented history of mental illness.
If you’re buying a weapon of mass destruction for self-defense, perhaps you didn’t consider that a handgun is just as deadly in the hands of a trained, disciplined shooter – which you should be by the time you own a gun of any sort. Personal angst and persecution aside, I have never felt compelled to simply shoot someone as a result of adverse events, and I imagine the vast majority of us can say the same, gun owners or not.
But none of that is pertinent to mass shooters. They presumably will use the most destructive weapon they can find if their goal is to slaughter humans. That weapon is generally an assault rifle, and I’m not making that up. And our government foolishly provided the cover for them to be widely distributed 231 years ago.
Most agree it’s time for change. Legislative, personal, whatever.
Prying assault weapons away from an ever-angry, ever-reactive public would be a brilliant place to start.
