By: Christian Lawrence Ward Malone

I love guns. I’ve been needing to do one of those posts where I can get all fired up about an issue. I expect strong responses. I can almost guarantee no one is neutral on an issue such as this about which so many millions, possibly billions of lives have been lost or damaged, so much liberty is at stake or so many people have spent so much money trying to fight.

@Barga: I think you’re going to love this one, given your thesis in opposition to the idea that disarming the population leaves criminals as the only ones who are armed. I’m not sure exactly how you feel about it, but gun rights is one of the few areas around which I have black and white, concrete views of what is right and what is wrong.

This is an opinion piece regarding the general issue of guns and gun rights. For my position on individual questions regarding gun control, ask. For statistics concerning these issues, I tried to stay as much within the realm of that which is widely accepted as possible. I hate statistics. But if you want some real, real bad, I’ll go dig for some *sigh*…

I have had a love affair with guns since perhaps 7th Grade or so. It may have been longer, it was certainly at least that long ago. I can still remember how hard it was to convince a single mother of an only child to let her son have an air rifle. Now, as an adult, I lament without cease the difficulty I have in accessing firearms. One of the major problems I have now as a legally recognized adult is one which still has many barriers for me to cross before I can ever own and use firearms. That problem is the law, in all its incarnations. Some among the others include societal acceptance, financial barriers, housing situation and the stupidity and ignorance of those around me. But I’ll talk about that later. Now, to why guns are good. I have to establish a value before I can defend it, now don’t I?

Well, to be perfectly honest with you, in one completely impossible scenario, I would hate guns and want them gone. This scenario is the one that I believe advocates of gun control live under, and I would willingly concede that guns are bad given these complete falsities and distortions of the truth. This will form my antithesis, and that’s a good stepping off point.

1. Guns have only one purpose: To kill/harm people. This one is clearly not true. Even if we say that the firearm which has many forms and adaptations can only kill or harm, it can also kill/dissuade animals for a range of perfectly legitimate purposes, such as for consumption. Don’t give me vegan propaganda, I’m not interested in it. I have dominion over the animals, I will eat as I please.
2. Killing people is ALWAYS wrong: Also clearly not true unless you operate under a different set of rules than is prescribed by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the United States Government and the State of Ohio, or most systems of law throughout history. I would gladly kill a number of people if presented the chance, like Osama bin Laden, for a nice noncontroversial example.
3. Gun control by the government would prevent guns from getting to violent people or the mentally handicapped: Not true. It would have worked already. It hasn’t. Don’t tell me it’s because we are too lenient. Criminals have guns everywhere.
4. Guns would not help deter/stop crimes in the hands of law-abiding citizens: FALSE. By far the most provable statement I will make all week. I can provide documented examples, hundreds or thousands of examples, where guns stopped or prevented crimes. You can ask for examples if you like, I’ll be happy to oblige, but any decently educated person already knows this.

So understand me when I say these things, I am working in the real world, not fantasyland where criminals are unarmed or the government/law enforcement is flawlessly effective.

I love guns because I like being able to defend myself. At short range, I would probably not have the time to draw a concealed weapon anyways, depending on the range we’re talking about. However, if someone at moderate range were shooting at me, my only method of defense would be a firearm. This is incontrovertible. I cannot dodge bullets, this is impossible. I cannot strike the person with my body, this too is impossible. My only recourse is to make the threat go away. Some projectile weapon is required for this. A firearm is the most practical and effective option. For the taser argument, do some research. You get one shot, within ~20 feet or some ridiculous distance, and it is only effective given a good hit which anchors in the subject. Clearly not useful for multiple shooters, medium to long range, combat inaccuracy, and besides, it’s also illegal to carry a taser on campus.

I love guns because I hate war. Because I hate war, I like to hope we’re pretty good at it. No one wants to have a war with a worthy opponent, not since the days of gentlemanly attrition warfare where men’s lives were played with like games by generals and admirals, kings and emperors. I would love an end to war, so far we’re doing ~okay~ at it. We can do the Iraq/Afghanistan debate if we must, *sigh*…

I love guns because they’re fun to shoot. I shoot at targets. These targets are not man-shaped, nor do I have the intention of ever swapping out targets for people. I would be more than happy to hunt for food, but not for simple fun. I would much rather just shoot at things that don’t feel pain. Whoever says shooting isn’t fun, has probably never done it before or has some crazed idea of what shooting is and who does it. It’s not violent at all, unless you make it violent. Driving a car is insanely dangerous and is far more lethal, both theoretically and practically based on data, than shooting is, at least in the U.S.. But if you drive carefully, you hopefully never hurt anyone, and the same thing goes for target shooters. Many people who shoot targets also shoot people, but the people that they shoot are the targets for good reasons, because they hurt others.

I love guns because they piss people off. I love it when people get mad at me because I’d like to see concealed/open carry made legal for all university students who would otherwise be legally allowed to have weapons. I thrive on the stupidity of individuals who believe that I am a bigger threat to the campus than having a large group of inherently unarmed people who are not allowed to defend themselves along with a police force which can scarcely monitor, and should not be monitoring, the everyday lives of students all around and off campus. I live in a bad neighborhood, people. Because I am not 21, and I spend every weekday on campus, I cannot carry a weapon on me in a neighborhood where most reasonable people might say it was a good idea. THIS PISSES ME OFF. Don’t restrict my ability to do as I please because you feel scared. I worry for my safety as well, but I’m not so much of a wuss as to depend on everyone else to take care of this problem for me.

There was a court case in Washington D.C. a few years back, wherein several women were assaulted, molested and raped in their own house. The police drove by out front, and did not notice the screams coming from the inside. Because they had no right to own guns because of local statute, they sued the police, claiming that they had been denied the protection that they could not provide themselves. The court found that they had no right to any thing because the police had to duty to protect individual citizens all of the time. That’s it. Game over. If you can’t protect yourself, they can’t protect you either. It’s the law. So if I can’t protect myself from a gunman, then that’s it. I’m defenseless. Thanks government. If anybody is curious, I will look that up and provide a much more accurate summary of this case, this paraphrase was given from memory.

Also, to those who would propose that although I personally might have the skills necessary to use a firearm, others might not, so thus we must have a generally applicable rule, and that it would be preferable to begin disarming law abiding people in the hopes that the flow of firearms would slowly wither, I have a question for you.

What gives you the right to tell me that I must be disarmed for your peace of mind? Why should I go defenseless while I’m waiting for your theory to kick in, which is not going to be anytime soon? What should I do while the millions of firearms that are already in criminal hands are still functioning, assuming no new additions to the pool by sales whatsoever? Perhaps should I just follow the police around, in the hopes that one will be near, should I ever be confronted with such a predicament as an armed attacker?

With all the due respect owed to you as a human being, FUCK YOU. It’s people like you that banned weed too, since I’m writing this on 4/20. Sorry for the language, but few things make me quite as incensed as those who would trade the liberty of others for their own safety. As for me, if you don’t hurt me, feel free to do whatever you want around me. I’d prefer if you lay off the public nudity in some cases, but hey, if that’s what floats your boat, live the dream. Me, my boat floats for protecting myself and others, and having a good time doing it. If that’s not for you, cool. Me and a lot of other peace-loving, gentle people would just love to do it for you, given the chance, the respect and the understanding that we deserve.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

The movie “Bowling for Columbine” is a 2002 ‘documentary’ that was directed by Michael Moore. The movie follows Moore as he travels around the country, and throughout Canada, in order to explore the concepts of gun control, gun violence, school shootings, and the nature of fear in the nation. The movie, like Moore’s previous films, contains a built in message, and attempts to lead the viewer to the same view. While Bowling for Columbine is a controversial film, it is generally well regarded, and even won an Academy Award.

When I first watched Bowling for Columbine (years ago, when it first came out), I felt as though the movie was too over-the-top. Certain scenes, specific personal reactions/statements, and the obvious lean of the film made me believe that Moore was attempting to overload the viewer. While I do not really know why he would have done this, I felt as though Moore adhered to the concept where, if you repeat a concept often enough, the public will believe it. Clearly, this was Moore’s tactic, and it seemed to be an effective one.

Likewise, I started to believe that the movie was far too scripted. The parts about K-Mart were well timed, but it was clear that the corporation had altered its policies before Moore showed up, and just chose to announce it then. Sure, it was a great PR move for both sides, but it didn’t really work well in the movie. As for the houses in Canada, I know several areas in the US where people keep their doors unlocked, but, like the majority of the US, most of Canada keeps theirs’ locked. I would rather have seen Moore try and fail a few times, to show that there are exceptions everywhere. This would have lent some credibility to the film.

While this was my view on Bowling for Columbine for a while, later viewings, including the one in class, altered this perception. Instead, I started to look into the actual message of the piece, and look into why Moore made this movie in the first place. Sure, greed and the desire for more gun-control are great motivators, but something else must have been driving this piece.

On this note, I started to notice the clear allusions to racism that are prevalent throughout the film. From the animated sequence implying that the KKK and the NRA are one and the same, to the explorations of Cops, the movie clearly focuses in on this racist attitude. As a white male, I always wondered what the big deal is, but the movie helped to explain it to me. Clearly, while the Civil Rights Movement might have gotten more freedoms and rights for blacks, the struggle is still not over; as long as the white population fears the blacks, they will always be kept down.

Fear, that is the word that I was looking for. It is also the theme that Moore was looking for, and looking to convey. Moore wanted to show the amount of fear that out society has, functions with, and manages in our daily activities. Fear of other countries, of blacks, of Mexicans, of neighbors, and even of our friends. Everything single thing shown in this movie explored our fears, and helped to show how, as a nation, we feed on these fears.

To me, this was the most important message in Bowling for Columbine, and the thing that Moore was striving to show. Americans are scared of each other and, as a result, we tend to load up on guns in order to ‘protect’ ourselves. Moore then shows that this protection is not needed, and thus it is futile. This intrigues me, and it causes me to evaluate my positions on other people in this nation. I can trust people more, as I know that they really are not out to covet my wife and steal my cow. Rather, they are as scared of me as I am of them, and we thus are on even footing.

That said, however, I still have issues with the concept of Bowling for Columbine as a documentary. While it might have won an Academy Award in this category, and is marketed as one, that doesn’t make it one. A documentary follows a specific event and/or group, without too much alteration (or manipulation) to the documented footage. While they are allowed to have a positional slant, they should not be guided by the narrator to that slant. Rather, selective editing, within reason, is allowed, directing the viewer to the desired perspective. In Roger and Me, and Blood in their Face, Moore actually makes a documentary; in Bowling for Columbine, Moore makes a feature film. While this is not an important issue, it is something that simply pisses me off.

So, does that mean that Bowling for Columbine is a good move, or that it completes its goal? While the movie was heavy handed, and clearly had an anti-gun slant, I believe that Moore accomplished his goal of getting the implied hidden racism in our society public. He also accomplished the goal of revealing our fear, and how it was stagnating our county. As with all of his other movies, Moore created a good storyline that drew me along, and caused me to question the nature of our state.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Please note, while this is a school essay, it has many sources and facts that are quite interesting. Anybody on either side should read it, as I guarantee that they will discover something new. That said, this is written in response to chapter two of “Lethal Logic” by Henigan

When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns

I chose Chapter two, “When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns,” because I have been hearing this phrase for years. Ever since I was a young child, I heard those on the pro-gun side of the debate utilize this rhetorical phrase in order to scare the population into opposing gun control. At the same time, I heard the anti-gun people responding to the phrase, pointing out other countries where this situation has not occurred. I have always been conflicted when dealing with this phrase, and believe that by furthering my research into it, I can learn the truth behind these words.

In Chapter two, Henigan starts his take on this famous phrase by discussing national politicians. When Sarah Palin was the dark-horse Vice Presidential candidate, she uttered a statement that roughly translates into this phrase. Henigan uses this, not to show that the phrase is true, but to show that the general public, and our elected officials, utilize this concept on a regular basis.

Henigan then moves on to the logical problems with this phrase. He starts to examine the claim that criminals will arm themselves, regardless of the gun laws of their nation. To do this, Henigan first considers the fact that curbing gun access is not dependent on whether the criminals will follow it or not. Rather, the mere act of curbing gun rights for the dangerous people, the government is able to enforce and arrest previous and/or current criminals before they commit a crime with the gun.

Staying with this logic, Henigan then explains how the gun laws themselves could keep actual criminals from owning guns. “But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so”(Henigan 42)? In this statement, Henigan is stipulating that the mere concept of breaking a law could keep those who would not normally violate the law from doing so with a gun. This would keep the drive-by criminals from getting guns, and thus committing more crimes.

Finally, Henigan finds a second logical problem with the phrase; he discovers that the argument implies that any law-abiding citizen will not be able to defend themselves from the criminal who still has a gun. He argues that main-stream society has various manners in which to protect themselves, and that guns are not needed to do this. Essentially, Henigan is stipulating that even if criminals get guns, the statement’s implications are not valid.

I believe that Henigan’s take on this phrase, specifically when dealing with the common usage of it, is valid and correct. In 1979, Edward Abbey started the mainstream adaptation of this phrase, with his essay known as “Abbey’s Road.¹” Ever since that moment, it is has been a common bumper sticker, a common statement, and a common sign on a fence. A simple Google search of the phrase, or even part of it, will bring up 369,000 hits of sites, articles, and blogs regarding this common concept. From this, it seems clear that Henigan’s views of the commonality and usage of this phrase are correct, and that the general public, and our elected leaders, use it daily.

When Henigan moves on to discuss the concept of a gun ban stopping drive-by criminals from committing gun crimes, I, yet again, must agree with his logic. Henigan argues that people who have the potentiality for violence or violent crimes, yet themselves are not criminals, would have no access to guns. In 1993, Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, more commonly known as “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” was signed into law by President Clinton. In the years after the Brady Bill was introduced, including those after the Supreme Court struck down background checks, gun crime in the United States has decreased by 25%², compared to a 14% drop for all other violent crimes.

With an 11% difference in the rate of decline, it is clear that something unique is going on in the gun crime sector of violent crimes. The Brady Bill, which created waiting periods (until they were replaced federally with instant computer checks), clearly is one of the main causes of this decline. The waiting period that was implemented served its purpose by causing those who were simply in rage, but not actually criminals, from buying guns. By requiring them to cool down, their rage would disperse, and they would not add to the statistics. From these percentages, it is clear that Henigan is right yet again, and that gun control will indeed stop the drive-by criminal from ever becoming one in the first place.

Yet another area in which I agree with Henigan is his contention that gun laws will in fact reduce the number of guns used by criminals. Henigan believes that a reduction in the availability of guns will result in less guns being placed into the hands of criminals. In the United States, the number one manner for criminals to obtain a firearm is through straw-purchaser sales; that is, a friend, relative, or a neighbor will go into the store and purchase the gun for them³. By eliminating this legal method of sales, the number one method of illegally obtaining firearms would be removed, and thus, the criminals would be less likely to get one.

While this would only indicate less guns for the criminals, it still does not show that guns would be used less in violent crimes. That said, however, one can see the effect that similar gun bans have had on criminal access to guns based on cases from around the world. After their banning of firearms, the Australian Attorney General stated that “firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997.⁴” Likewise, after stricter English gun laws went into effect in 1996, the overall violent crime rate decreased by around 5%⁵.

By looking at the results of gun laws from around the world, one can see that stricter gun laws relate to less crimes committed with guns, as well as less violent crimes committed in general. This fact runs contrary to the expressed sentiment of the phrase, and leads credibility to Henigan’s take on it. Clearly, Henigan is right in saying that a reduction in the availability of guns (gun control) has a direct correlation with a reduction in crimes committed with a gun.

While it seems clear that Henigan’s views of this phrase have valid evidence behind them, they still suffer from a few weaknesses. For starters, Henigan seems to believe that criminals who get a gun would be caught by officers prior to using the gun in a crime. Current laws limit the ownership of guns for certain felons, criminals, and paroles. By using this, officers making a basic check-up, or even a traffic stop, would be able to find the gun and get the violent offender off of the street.

While this stipulation seems nice in theory, it suffers a few flaws. Firstly, it assumes that these criminals will have a plain-site gun, as well as have it stored in an easy to access location. It also assumes that the officers will act correctly, and that there will be a time between the purchase of the firearm and its use in crime, when the officers could find it. Obviously, neither of these are guarantees. In Sacramento, California, straw-purchasers purchased and supplied guns to known felons, all 32 of which were used in crimes⁶. Henigan’s contention that criminals with guns could be stopped is shown to be faulty in this and other instances. This clearly reveals a major weakness in Henigan’s presumption.

Another flaw in Henigan’s logic is that he believes that even without guns, Americans will be able to defend themselves against aggressors with guns. Henigan argues that a basic assumption of the phrase is that the population can not defend themselves without guns, and that they will be helpless if the criminals get the guns around the law (already shown that this will not happen). He believes that the population will indeed be able to defend themselves, and that they will not need guns for self-defense.

While there are various techniques for defending oneself from an aggressor with a gun, most of them require extensive training and/or physicality. Furthermore, with an average of 1.5 million uses of firearms as a form of defense per year⁷, it is clear that the American populace utilizes guns as a form of defense. Even if Henigan is correct is stipulating that one can defend themselves without guns, it is clear that guns are an essential defensive tool. As such, his contention is once again flawed.

While the phrase “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns” might be a fun talking point for politicians and people in the gun-right battle, it is clear that the phrase is rather unfounded. A Henigan points out in chapter two, the assumptions and accusations of the phrase have no grounding, and they are not valid. Though there are a few problems with his logic, the overall argument is sound and well rounded. This common phrase clearly is overused, and, as evidenced in this chapter, should be removed from the public lexicon.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Post 23:

This entry is not about these cases, but I do reserve the right to talk about those another time.

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled (rightly) that you can only be put to death if you killed somebody. The decision was 5-4. Today, SCOTUS ruled (wrongly) that the 2nd amendment protected individual gun rights. The decision was 5-4. In both of those cases, the swing voter was one Kennedy. The court is at one of it’s most volatile points that it has ever been at, with Kennedy having the most power that anybody has had in the court for a long time. Kennedy is the balance right now. The courts make up is bound to change soon, and who knows what will happen there.

Let us look at the makeup of the court for a minute. Roberts is 53, Alito is 58, Breyer is 70, Ginsburg is 75, Kennedy is 72, Scalia is 72, Souter is 69, Stevens is 88, and Thomas is 60. Looking at that, it seems as though six justices are nearing the average death point of our society. That scares me, a lot. Especially seeing how four of them are the entire liberal side of the court. So, the presidential election will probably decide who can appoint 2 justices, maybe even more. This means that the presidential election will tip SCOTUS by a large amount.

With McCain already on record as saying that he will appoint people like Roberts and Scalia I have to start considering what I want on SCOTUS. Face it, these people will be on there for about half of my life, so they better be good. While more Roberts are okay in my book, I do not want that many of them. Furthermore, with Roberts position in the last few weeks, he has started to scare me.

Now, I normally advise people to not vote on one issue; I tell them that they should vote on many things at once. But, with something as important as 4 judge choices coming up, it seems as though the Supreme Court should be one of the top areas to pay attention to. McCain’s choices scare me, and, frankly, they are starting to make me want to migrate into the Obama camp (though very grudgingly). Mr. McCain, please let us know that you will appoint moderates, as both parties legislate from the bench.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other