I remember a time when I stated the opinion that, since a handgun is an object designed for no purpose other than the taking of human life, it should be banned if society is serious about this "killing people is wrong" notion. For the sake of self-consistency alone, if not for any real effectiveness of such a ban. In specific, I was one of those who pointed to the qualifier - regarding well-regulated militias - as evidence that the framers did not intend for the common man to have a right to gun ownership.

However, I've become a bit less naive over the years (or so I like to kid myself :-). For one thing, after the Columbine tragedy, a million and one cretins began suggesting that pressing buttons on a keyboard to cause pixellated images to undergo pixellated animations of death was so mind-wrenching an experience that it drove these kids - who were for some reason already loaded down with shotguns and pipe-bombs - to go kill their classmates. Never mind the fact that I personally played more DOOM in my H.S. years than the entire "Trenchcoat Mafia" did in their lives, and haven't plotted mass murder yet - not even a little mass murder for a lark. Not once! So here I was, suddenly faced with the looming specter of people like Joe Lieberman clamoring to outlaw violent video games - and all of a sudden I knew just how the gun nuts had been feeling for years. I thought to myself, "Waitaminnit, self... aren't these the same folks who knee-jerk the exact same way against guns? Well, if their logic where *games* are concerned is this flawed..."

So I took a long step back and re-evaluated what actually causes gun violence, partially because I've also met quite a few responsible gun owners. I've come to the viewpoint that gun violence is caused by social ills, not the availability of weapons. If I have no desire to kill a man today, I will not desire to kill him tomorrow if have a gun by then. And conversely, if I wish to kill a man but do not have a gun, I'm not going to say "aww, shucks" and forget about it; I am going to kill him with a knife, a crowbar, a baseball bat, a blender, or something. Furthermore, guns are an ill that is not going away - if they are made illegal, then only criminals will have them. They're breaking the law anyway - think they mind breaking a gun law to help them break the FIRST law better, plus have a higher chance of getting away with BOTH crimes?

I thought a bit more about handguns. I visited NYC and saw the future: everyone jammed in cheek by jowl, no one has guns, everyone toes the line, and everyone is rude and surly. Compare to my state of birth, Indiana: everyone has guns, everyone has a loud and annoying opinion, and you don't hear much honking on the road. Also, it creeps me out that millions of people live on Manhattan, and all the government would have to do to enslave them all would be to put about 50 guys with machineguns and one tank on each bridge. (Ok, and a couple armed Coast Guard launches. And probably someone will find some other way to pick this apart, but I hope my meaning gets through, even if the delivery is flawed.)

Another thing: why is it we always see moaning in the media about kids shooting kids, but we never hear cheering when a pretty young woman uses her pistol and her NRA training to blow away a would-be rapist? It seems guns never get the good side (such as it is) told. I personally would prefer self-defense not require harming the other person, but taser technology just isn't as good yet. And that's what people say guns are for: self-defense. So why does the proper use of a handgun for self-defense never make it into the news?

Guns are also an equalizing factor. Think of what we have here: a device that can impose ultimate power / force over another human (threat of death), which requires only enough strength to hold the barrel steady and pull a trigger, and can be concealed easily under a coat or sweater. You'd have to have bad eyesight, be very elderly, or be extremely frail or ill to be unable to use a handgun. So they're usable by nearly every member of the population. Compare to ancient weapons, which required much greater coordination and strength, and since reach and muscle mass was of critical importance in melee combat, males were more dangerous with such weapons. Guns, however, favor neither men nor women, old nor young, black nor white, christian nor muslim.

What better deterrant could there be to crime? Obviously we're doing a poor job of rehabilitating criminals these days, so how about we work on some prevention? If every young, pretty woman in America had a pistol she knew how to shoot in her purse, and if every male knew it, how much rape do you think would happen? I'm not saying I love the idea of every human being carrying around the threat of single-serving ultimate force in their pocket, but it seems to be an equalizer of sorts. I think our society could use a little more equality. All we need is a comprehensive system for matching each bullet to a gun and each gun to an owner, so we know who shot who.

There are two issues with this that I can see: the "arms race" effect, and the "innocent bystander" effect. Last things first: There is no legitimate need for fully automatic weapons for self-defense. If enemies are coming at you so fast and furious that you can't crank trigger fast enough to stop them all, then you're probably too fucked for violent self-defense to be any use to you. Also, you may hit someone who's not involved in your crisis whatsoever, and that's just plain uncool.

As for the "arms race" effect, banning assault weapons will stop part of it. The other angle is armor. Would criminals take to wearing kevlar before they go mug or rape someone? Possibly. If that were so, it would become safety for the rich, who could afford armor-piercers and armor, over the poor. But then, it's just that on another level today - gun haves, gun have-nots. However, it still gives crime victims a fighting chance, because as of yet, bulletproof helmets aren't commonly available.

I personally don't plan on owning a gun, because if I was attacked violently and shot and killed my attacker, I don't think my conscience would let me rest well again. Yes, I'm a softie. However, I do plan on getting, and being trained in the use of, a Taser when I can afford it. Next best thing, I guess. And my days of bashing the guns-as-self-defense argument are over.


-Kasreyn

P.S. I'm sure the idea of an armed and trained populace doesn't appeal to the government, either. If they ever need to declare Martial Law - strictly for our protection, you understand *wink* - they might have a harder time pulling it off with that many more armed, pissed-off citizens who know the land better than their soldiers do.