There's an article circulating entitled, "F** you, I like guns"
Written by a self-identified "big liberal, kind of a socialist, really," it's no surprise that it's anti-gun. It's relatively well-written, but is filled with logical fallacies and advocates a so-called solution that will solve nothing. Rather than just post a response, I felt it more appropriate to put responses in-line.
So here goes:
----------
America,
can we talk? Let’s just cut the shit for once and actually talk
about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re
actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re
not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have
to do better. (amen, sister!)
We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not
if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s
when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US.
(Wait, what? A school shooting in less than
every three days? For real? You can't possibly be talking about that
discredited “Everytown” claim that there have been 18 school
shootings in 2018, could you? Digging through the numbers reveals
that there were actually 5 incidents in 2018 that occurred during
school hours and 4 that one would consider a “school shooting.”
Four horrible, inexcusable monstrosities in which an individual
brutally cut short the lives of their peers. Whether there are eighteen shootings or just one does not change the serious nature of
this topic, nor the need to discuss appropriate action. But if we're
going to discuss the issues, let's discuss the actual issue, not
conflate them with fear-mongering and dishonest tactics.)
If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So
let’s talk.
I’ll
start. I’m an Army veteran. (Ditto, but
that makes you an authority on what?) I like M-4’s,
which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few
extra features that people almost never use anyway. (Whoa,
whoa, whoa. Stop the bus! Did you just try to gloss over the fact
that an M4 has either a three-round burst or full-auto function (depending upon the specific model) and an AR-15 doesn't?
Are you trying to capitalize on your audience's potential ignorance of the
mechanics of firearms and try to get them to equate the two? Did you
perhaps hope that your audience wouldn't realize that an AR-15 is
actually the “demilitarized” variant of an M-4, rendering it no
different than any semi-automatic firearm with extended magazine
capability? I mean, seriously, didn't we just talk about dishonest
tactics?) I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons
training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split
between various and sundry (redundant much?)
machineguns and grenade launchers. (Grenade
launchers were my fav. Love the M19) My experience is
pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really
good with an M-4 (to be honest, I beg to
differ, I'd say that most soldiers are actually pretty poor marksmen,
but that doesn't really change the issue, so whatever),
and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an
objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. (good
on you) I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the
range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. (again,
disagree, but whatever) I can name dozens of other
soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing.
This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof
really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a
dream, and is light to carry around (agreed). I’m probably more accurate with it than I
would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this
rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. (Me
too. Preach!) When I was in the military, I enjoyed
combining these two things as often as they’d let me. (Which
is WAY less often than most civilians realize)
With
all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider
weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting.
It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how
to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot
plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s
not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t
shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. (Wait,
so certain shapes of target are only made for certain guns? I've been
shooting steel circles with my LR-308 for years. I'VE BEEN DOING IT ALL
WRONG!) Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You
learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger
target than the head, (true) and
also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him
cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can
shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him
a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres
as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m
sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though,
when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was
not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a
good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as
possible, and that was never a secret. (Well,
yeah. If you're a soldier, one of your most basic skillsets must be
to kill the enemy.)
As
an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above
words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US
Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings.
(The purpose of any weapon, whether in the
hands of the US soldier or Mother Teresa, is to injure, defeat or
destroy. That's what categorizes them as weapons. Our troops aren't
over there on a field trip. They're sent there to kill the enemy)
That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years
has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether
it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same,
and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target
rifles. They are people killing rifles. (Don't
confuse the intent with the instrument. A rifle in the hand of a
hunter is a hunting rifle; in the hands of a professional marksman,
it's a glorified paper punch; in the hand of a soldier, then for his
or her sake it had damn well better be a killing machine. Hell, a
fork in the hand of a US soldier in combat ought be turned into a
people-killing fork) Let’s stop pretending they’re
not.
With
this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in
recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? (Finally,
we get to the point) And why wouldn’t they? High
capacity magazine (available for numerous weapons), ease of loading
and unloading (same), almost no recoil (the
223 in general has low-recoil, but the buffer-spring does take away what little punch it had left, though a good muzzle brake can do
the same for most any firearm), really accurate even
without a scope (we can argue minutia of
what makes a rifle accurate and which model is more accurate than
which, but in reality a well-built AR-15 is not more accurate than
most any other well-built rifle, and truly, is less accurate than
many other firearms just as readily-available), but
numerous scopes available for high precision (you
can slap a scope on most any gun, sister.), great from a
distance or up close, easy to carry (No
easier than any other rifle and WAY harder to carry than a good
pistol. I don't see anybody declaring their Bushmaster a
“carry-piece.”), and readily available. (again,
not any more “available” than most any other kind of legal
firearm) You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any
sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you
have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. (and
pass a background check, of course. Don't gloss over those pesky
facts again!) This rifle was made for the modern mass
shooter, especially the young one. (Wow, way
to jump to a conclusion) If he could custom design a
weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job
than Armalite did with this one already. (Again,
the AR-15 is functionally no different than any other modern
semi-automatic rifle.)
This
rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able
to get their hands on one. (Again, there is
nothing inherent to the AR-15 that makes this rifle fundamentally
more deadly than others. It is simply the most popular sporting rifle
around currently. If an SKS, M1A1, or M14 were more popular today,
then they'd be the topic of our discussion, not the AR-15.)
We simply don’t need these things in society at large. (We
need the AR-15 no more or less than we need any other firearm.) I always find it interesting that when I
was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient
with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison
other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned
and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t
carry them around just because we liked them. (Besides
a handful of activists who inconvenience themselves by lugging their
AR-15's to assert their 2nd
amendment rights, nobody “carries around” their AR just 'cause.
It's not exactly a fashion accessory.) We didn’t bluster
on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. (You
must have simply hung out with a different crowd than what you label
the “gun-nuts”. Military servicemen and women are simply a
segment of the general population. There are both 2nd
amendment advocates and people who advocate for its alteration or
even absolution in the military, just like in the society from which these servicemembers originate) We tucked our rifles away
in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had
been done since the Army’s inception. (Soldiers
have no choice but to “tuck away” their issued firearms at the
armory. Regardless of this misdirect, that's precisely what a
responsible firearm owner does anyway. He or she puts his or her
firearm in its safe until he/she next needs it. Again, I fail to see
you're point here) The military police protected us from
threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the
only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to
protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this
system has worked well. (Except for those
rare exceptions that eventually led to the DoD quietly allowing
soldiers to carry their concealed firearms for personal protection in
late 2016. Probably because they realized that having armed personnel
who can respond to an incident can end a shooting spree much more
quickly than an unarmed populace that has to wait for an MP to show
up) There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in
society in general, probably because soldiers are actively
discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably
well trained with them. (First, there's a
culture of camaraderie among soldiers that doesn't exist in larger
society. There's a common purpose, a brotherhood, if you will. Doing
harm to your brother is even more unthinkable than doing harm to a
stranger. Second, the second amendment doesn't apply the to soldiers
the way that it does to the general populace. Soldiers are required to
register every firearms with garrison and are required to keep them
in the armory if living in the barracks and in a locked safe if
living elsewhere, with the exception of the concealed carry exception previously mentioned. They are subject to inspections at any time. Third,
non-military are absolutely forbidden from entering post with a
firearm, and all vehicles and personnel are subject to search at entry control points.)
Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian
population take a page from that book? (I
pity the individual who would choose a world where police search your
vehicle every time you enter town, require you to declare your
possessions, and will come into your home at any time to ensure your
compliance. But then again, you are a self-described socialist)
I
understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We
just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we
have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. (We
do manage gun ownership) People have to get a license to operate a car, and if
you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble
for that. (Cars have not been asserted as
protected by the constitution by the supreme court) We
manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people
by their misuse. (And that works so well)
In addition to cars, we manage drugs (horribly),
alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t
own Serval cats, for example) (Aside from
the fact that exotic animals have an instinctual drive to escape
captivity and, if predatory, to hunt and kill (last time I checked,
my firearms aren't beating down my safe walls and striving to hunt
prey while I'm away), exotic animal ownership is not a constitutional
right), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict
what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or
county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any
activity a person wants to conduct (so lack
of freedom in one area of life justifies it in another? Seems a bit
Orwellian) since those activities could affect others, and
we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to
other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around
them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our
country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of
dead people. (Gun ownership IS managed, or
at least management is attempted. Felons, abusers, mentally ill, and
others are prohibited from firearm ownership. Persons must pass a
background check to purchase a firearm legally. The Sutherland
Springs shooter should NOT have passed his background check, but due
to DoD not reporting his domestic abuse, did anyway. Before we decide
on new gun restrictions, let's focus on more competently enforcing
the laws that we already have.)
I
can’t drive a Formula One car to work. (If
you modify it to be street-legal you absolutely could. Lola did it
with the T97. It's kind of like demilitarizing an M-4 into an AR-15)
It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably
cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible
Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway
next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a
cloud of dust! (Did you really just compare
someone's responsible use of an AR-15 to your irresponsible use of an
automobile? Driving your car like a madman is not a realistic
comparison to a sportsman taking his rifle to the range)
Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people.
(Exactly, like idiots who drive 140 on the
freeway.) Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is
bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue
non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea.
(I actually think legal formula one cars on
the freeway would be awesome to see; however, Formula One racing on
an active freeway is reckless. Get the difference?) Yet,
these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm
equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “fuck
you, I like guns”. (Thanks for deciding
what I would say. I don't generally curse, by the way. And who's Jim Jeffries anyway?)
Yes,
yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution,
which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. (It's
not sacrosanct over all others, though it's fair to say it helps to
serve as an insurance policy that protects the others. Your right to
free speech, like this drivel, is just as important as my right to a
firearm.) Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a
malleable document. (Only to be changed
through constitutional amendment, not the whims of opinion. Your
interpretation, thankfully, does not decide its meaning. Only the
supreme court is granted that power, and they've spoken on this
topic.) It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun
control without infringing on the right to bear arms. (I
beg to differ. Any restriction on a right is an infringement by its
very nature. ) You can have your deer rifle. You can have
your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have
your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify
at a predetermined interval. (And by that
line of logic, we should be required take civics tests before being
allowed to vote. After all, an uninformed voting base is way more
dangerous to America's welfare than a guy with a gun. But we wouldn't
do that because such a restriction is also an infringement on the
right to vote) You do not need a military grade rifle. You
don’t. There’s no excuse. (Again with
the equivocating the AR-15 to the M-4. They're almost the same,
except for that pesky rapid fire part you so conveniently omitted)
“But
we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons
the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get
an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously,
though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the
government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t.
One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of
standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for
that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with
this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second. (For
all of our military might, the Vietcong, Somali warlords, and the
Taliban have put up quite the fight. While your correct that a direct
face-off between dudes with AR-15s and a bunch of tanks and fighter
jets would be suicidal, that's not the point. The point is that
military suppression of the citizens of an armed populace would
require immensely more bloodshed than an unarmed one. It's certainly
a deterrent.)
Let’s
be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of
people, that’s all an AR-15 is. (Right,
and right) It’s something fun to take to the range and
put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I
know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of
people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the
freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional
grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this
stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the
overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in
the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol
of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs
are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand
off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American.
Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. (Not
the point; it's my right to own one) Nobody does. Society
needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are
dying, and it’s time to stop fucking around.
-------
Your
initial prognosis is correct: society is broken.
It's
almost cliché, but even I, a guy in his mid 30's, can remember a day
when guns were in racks in the back of trucks in the school parking
lot. I kept a rifle in my truck so I could go shoot with buddies
after school or maybe catch a few jackrabbits on my way home. Yet
neither I nor my friends would ever have dreamed of harming another
person with the gun in the back of the truck. Now, there are fewer
than ever firearms on school property, but mass shootings are on the
rise.
The
gun is not the problem. We all know it, but we seem to refuse to
admit it. Somehow, we've lost respect for one another. Somehow, value
for human life has become less than it ought to be. For some reason,
we now glorify killing in our media, but are conveniently insulated
from the actual realities of death.
We
need to try to fix our society, not run around banning the implements borne by
the manifestations of society's ills. Yes, the AR-15's popularity has
made it the implement of a mass shooter today, but banning it won't
stop evil men from committing evil acts. The next most popular
firearm will take its place, then the next, and so on. If firearms
are banned, then pressure-cooker bombs, vehicle attacks, and knife
attacks will persist or increase.
Society
seems determined to refuse to believe that evil exists within it.
Instead, we delude ourselves into believing that it's not our fault,
but that of an inanimate object.
