The big picture:
It has never been a good idea to begin the consideration of
an issue from either irrational fear and hostility or eye-glazed devotion and
longing. With that in mind, I begin looking at guns from the history of the forces
from which they arose.
Human inventions have been and are most often about doing
more, faster, with mechanical advantage and at greater distances than arm’s
length. And we almost always end
up having complex and mixed feelings about our inventions. I can, with two hands, scoop up a
couple of pounds of dirt, if the ground isn’t too hard. The big mechanical shovels can reach
out a hundred feet and scoop up 25,000 pounds of dirt and rock in one dip (the
very biggest excavators pick up 150,000 pounds in a single scoop).
“Biting” or hitting something from 10 or more feet away has
been a project of our genus (and genius) for millions of years: rocks, pointed
sticks, spears, atlatl darts, bows with arrows, tubes with soft metal ‘rocks’
and explosive powder. This last has, of course, become the gun.
A man can throw a rock by hand with about 80 foot-pounds of
energy (the amount of energy required to lift 80 pounds one foot, but
concentrated into the striking surface of the rock and transferred to the object
struck over a very brief amount of time).
A powerful handgun can throw a chunk of lead with an initial 700
foot-pounds of energy and, the most powerful commonly accessible shoulder arm,
with 5000 foot-pounds of energy.
A rock, with natural skill and practice, can be fairly
accurately thrown over a distance of no more than about 50 feet (15
meters). A handgun can be pinpoint
accurate with average skill at 60 feet (18 meters) and much more with fully developed
skill. A shoulder arm can be
pinpoint accurate at a quarter of a mile (400 meters). These are the kinds of, and rates of,
development that would be expected from something that hominids have been
working at for a million years.
There are three points here: guns are one present
technological product of a process that humans have been at for a very long
time; the sophistication and power of the result is typical of many of our
other technological pursuits – and, as with many of them, overwhelming and
beyond our biological capacities to either understand or control; and guns are
the present device in support of behaviors, specific to killing other animals
and other humans, that have long been a part of the species.
But, before we get to the critical element of lethality we
need to understand there are many things we have invented that may very well be
doing too much more, moving too fast and pushing our actions out beyond the
reach of our foresight, things that we have lost control of to our peril. In this sense an AR-15 with a 100 round
drum is similar to the mechanical shovel in its relationship to the
non-mechanical power of the basic human.
Each bullet leaves the gun barrel with about 1100 foot-pounds of energy;
that times 100 equals 110,000 foot-pounds of energy per magazine. The two responses, “Wow, I gotta get me
one o’them,” and “That is completely fucked up,” pretty much sum up the range
of argument.
The primary difference between guns and almost all of our
other inventions, that have come to dominate our lives rather than us controlling
them, is that lethality is their intended purpose. All the projectile tossing implements are to prevent a
living thing from either running away, or from running at us, by killing it. The origin and function of a firearm is
not target or skeet shooting; these are devices with the intended function of
creating incapacitating injury to another living thing from a distance. This is the primary reality that must
be factored into our response to them, not their other “utilities.”
The most basic question we must ask is: Does a community
have the responsibility to control the products of human invention, and
specifically to guns, the sources and methods of lethality available to its
members? A related question is:
Who in a society should have access to devices with lethal capacities, should
that access be regulated and, if so, how?
It would be a very hard case, indeed, who would claim that there should
be no limitation on any invention or source of lethality.
(Let us dispense with the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution; it really is a red herring.
Any honest reading of the amendments to the Constitution and the
arguments surrounding their creation make quite clear that the intention of the
Second Amendment was other than the freedom to have firearms in the hands of
private citizens with no limitations.
Those who claim Second Amendment justifications for uncontrolled gun
availability are seeking official justification for personal, and commercial,
desires and fears by selective and dishonest reading.
Full text, Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.
Ignoring the opening conditional clause of the Second Amendment distorts
its meaning and intention just as much as ignoring the conditional clauses in
the Third Amendment which then might be read to mean that no soldier can ever
be quartered in a private home, which is clearly neither the meaning or intention
of that amendment.)
It is only sensible that a thing that can (be made to) kill
with only the slightest of physical effort must be treated differently than
other more difficult to use potentially lethal instruments, even those made
specifically for that purpose.
Knives and swords, spears and lances, bows with arrows, combat hatchets
and clubs(and like instruments), garrotes, various poisons, and all those
hundreds of kinds of large war making machines are all moderated in their
availability and use by either social custom or law. Let’s just say that humans must come to realize that the
whole pantheon of our inventions, all manner of weapons among them, need to be
brought into ecological balance – as every species and living behavior has been
in obligatory ecological balance for billions of years.
A Personal Reflection:
But here the argument gets awkward and spins into regions
where, in general, humans have difficulty: probabilities. We like certainties
better and do our damnedest to build sophistries that convert ‘maybe’ into ‘for
sure.’ “No one needs a gun” and “everyone needs a gun:” the results of either
certainty are both foolish.
Admittedly, the “no one needs a gun” argument, in most present societies,
has more merit, but there are times and certain human activities when the
capacity to deliver lethality is a desirable option to have at hand; our
question is what are those times and activities. And then, how are we to control and enforce our choices?
What are the unquestioned justifiable reasons for having
(and therefore using) a gun, not generalities like “self-protection,” but the
actual occasions when the legal standard, “most reasonable people,” would
agree? While in some larger
context there can be strong counter-arguments, guns can be considered
appropriate in the hands of soldiers, police, forest rangers, subsistence
hunters and others who potentially (that tricky probability thing again) face
lethal force from either anti-society elements or natural sources of lethality.
There are a few people in the world who have so slipped the
bonds of the social order that they are a danger to people in general, very
few, but they are none-the-less real.
There are also, still, a few animals that, if confronted in the wild,
can threaten life and limb.
Whether it is the best solution or not, I feel better
carrying a powerful sidearm when I am walking alone in mountain lion country,
miles from any sanctuary. And yes,
I have been followed – stalked – before: it was marvelously invigorating, but
it was also dangerous (which, of course, is why it was invigorating). Given the only choice between not going
at all and going without a sidearm, I would go in the wild country anyway, but
finding fresh tracks or scat, or surprising a lion up-close as I did one day,
is a more pleasant and desirable experience with even the illusion of the
capacity to stop the very small chance of attack.
So, there it is! The argument: When there is a danger for which a gun ‘might’ be the appropriate
palliative, then its availability should not be denied (you will note that is
not the language of the second amendment). On the other hand, when the gun is the danger, then a clear case can be made for it to
be denied. You can easily see that
this quickly becomes unwieldy: if the gun is the danger for which we need a
gun… and so on.
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Almost true;
though true enough to ask the question: “What people should be allowed to kill
people?” (This is really the correct form of the question of who should have
access to guns.) If the answer is
that no one should be allowed to kill people, then, at least, those guns
clearly designed for the killing of humans should be outlawed, no longer made
and confiscated. However, as much
as we might like that simple and non-probabilistic answer, some people must be
empowered to kill.
I should be able to kill a person intent on doing me serious
bodily harm. That sounds
reasonable, but in my 70 years, lived in a great variety of circumstances, I
have never been attacked in such a way (even by a wild animal). The probability curve of my being
seriously harmed or dieing has been pushed into the large positive standard
deviations by automobiles, mountains, weather, water, my own hubris and
occasional human general foolishness.
I suspect that this is the case for more than 99% of people in the
developed world. In fact, were I
“attacked” by a gang of gun-toting blood-thirsty drug-addled criminals (like
Charles Bronson in “Death Wish 3”) my odds would not be good even armed with
what society currently accepts as reasonable for a private citizen.
It would make much more sense for me to always wear a crash
helmet and body pads, than to carry a gun, if I am concerned about dangers with
substantial probability – even in wild country.
More arguments:
1) Guns as a hedge against “the government:”
Thom Hartmann’s consistent argument that an Apache
helicopter or f16 (or Randi Rhodes’ Bradley fighting vehicle) vs. a few guys
with AR-15s or Kalashnikovs would be so uneven a confrontation as to be
hopeless misses the point entirely.
First and most obviously the confrontation described is the one at
present in Afghanistan, but even that misses the point; which is, that the mistrust
and fear of coercive institutions (seen as government even if really
corporately inspired) is creating a variety of both impotent and semi-potent
responses. Aaron Swartz represents
one response and Alex Jones represents another – but to essentially the same
stimulus. The same can be said for
a wide variety of unlikely combinations: Julian Assange and Sean Hannity
(government secrecy), Michael Savage and Mike Malloy (need for overturning
common perceptions),
They each may draw lines around different regions of
specific content, but like a Venn diagram, they also share an important origin;
that is, the outsized concentration of power in the corporate-government
hegemony over almost every aspect of life. ‘Back to the land’ hippies, secessionist militias,
crime-watch groups in minority neighborhoods, “sovereign” citizen movements,
while having different levels of connection to Reality, all share the common
motive force that something is terribly wrong with how power is allocated and
relegated (limited) in our daily and personal lives.
Each group has, in the past, seen their way as the way forward and have taken the word of the
corporate-government sophists that it is the “other guy” holding them
back. But that misdirection is
growing old. The Shultz’s and the
Limbaugh’s are sounding more and more alike as are the Frum’s and the
Hartmann’s. But it is the
callers-in to talk radio that are telling the story. Even when screened, as some admit “to make the host look
good,” the depth of the more general angst comes through.
Guns are one of the few sources of a sense of power in the
face of such confusing, mind-boggling domination – no matter how futile they
might be. Even a grizzly bear is loath to attack a badger for fear of that one
lucky bite. An organized body
public with weapons, even greatly inferior weapons, will be treated with more
caution than a body public that is disorganized and individually
powerless. While the actions of
such a public may be incredibly dangerous and ultimately wrong-headed, the fact
remains that an armed public is more powerful in absolute terms than an unarmed
public.
2) Gun “loving:”
The ‘little dick’ theory of gun affection is as juvenile a
notion as the gun loving itself, and is certain to prevent either the
proclaimer or the one proclaimed from discovering or sharing a more honest and
accurate set of motives for their behaviors and beliefs. This is equally true of the opposite
number, the “wimp, coward and ignorant” theory of gun rejection. Just as most male gun owners have
normal genital endowments, gun refusers are just as likely to be tough minded,
brave and well-informed as anyone else (though perhaps not about trivial gun
detail).
Something else, and more, is working to attach some people
to weapons and to cause some people to reject lethal instruments. This is one dynamic that needs our
understanding and attention.
That guns of different designs and capacities have different
consequences is another dynamic, just as people are not simple, so guns, even
though they share many common elements including lethality, have differences
that need attention.
3) Guns as sport and survival tool:
This comes in two forms: hunting and the various kinds of
target shooting. Neither are the
benign activities posited by advocates or as ruthlessly blood-thirsty as
presented by detractors. But that
doesn’t mean that there is a complete or easy symmetry between the two views.
Hunting by humans has changed the ecology of a majority of the planet’s surface
– including the oceans. Many
species have been driven to extremis or extinction. These are not good things. Hunting was once an essential part of human survival and so
is still a motive in our actions as well as a cultural relic. But our vast numbers and the incredible
power that present weapons bring to the “game” have removed sport and most
commercial hunting from almost any usefulness (beyond that tiny few who still
live close to the land) and have made hunting a seriously non-adaptive
activity.
Target shooting may be practice for hunting and killing, but
“plinking’ is also just fun: knocking things down from a distance to the
accompaniment of a loud noise.
Getting good at something is pleasurable. There is a language and a mystique around the whole
process. People can be together,
“play” together, in the company of a powerful object.
But if we are doing these things so that we can survive when
‘the shit hits the fan’ we are kidding ourselves. We should rather be working on organizing communities and
learning to garden with both heritage seeds and native plants. The earth’s billions would kill and eat
every animal (as well as each other) much faster than most animals could
reproduce – until the commercial ammunition ran out, until the handloaders used
up the last of their powder and primers.
The symbolic, psychological and commercial uses of guns:
Guns are a source of power: It is a reality; it is also a
reality that the power of guns has been mythologized and taken on a
psychological, as opposed to a purely practical, quality.
A person with a gun is a decidedly different thing than a
person without a gun. The small and weak can be the apparent equal of the large
and strong if they have equivalent “fire power” and expertise. This is really not in question and is,
also, not the question! Which is: why would one need the “fire
power” and the expertise?
A person surrounded by a community of trusted others might
want to have weapons available against some form of outside threat, but would
not feel the need of them when in the protection of community. But, in a world in which individual
power is held up as the ultimate currency, being in possession of guns seems to
be an inexpensive buy-in to power.
It is completely understandable that a person who feels threatened as a
generalized condition will desire a remedy. Creating the ill-ease and then selling the remedy would lead
to big money.
The fact is that millions of people go about their lives
everyday without the felt need for the power of a serious weapon immediately at
hand; and moreover, the general safety of their day-in and day-out existence
supports their feeling. There are
others who have the felt need for the most powerful weapon that they can
comfortably carry with them; there can be no argument that the existence of
such weapons in the community increase a certain kind of danger to
everyone.
Summary:
All of which returns us to the opening arguments. Humans have created objects of great
power, power to dig, to lift, to transport, to communicate, to coerce, to store
perishables, many more, and to kill living things in massive numbers – it is
one of our greatest achievements!
• As long as our societies present us with the design that
we are isolated individuals fending for ourselves there will be an increased
felt need for the most powerful weapons of protection possible… until the
people are more afraid of the weapon’s misuse than they are of each other.
• Guns have come to represent to people more than the sum of
their actual uses, be those uses positive, benign or negative: some people only
feel whole and right with the world when they possess them and others become
some degree of physically sick when they see them; they are an irrational
source of both power and dread.
• Much of the anti-gun rhetoric is demeaning of those who
have guns and is based in the fear of the anti-social use of guns; much of the
pro-gun rhetoric is deeply illogical and based in the fear of others who might
wish to harm them and the fear that guns will be taken away.
• Guns are not just “guns.” A well-made .22 revolver is a very different thing than a
poorly made .22 semi-auto, a .44 magnum, a 30-06 hunting rifle, a 10 gauge
goose gun, a semi-auto military look-alike .223 or a .50 caliber machine
gun. They all share lethality, but
that alone does not make them the same.
They are made for, or intended for, different uses and for different
markets. Treating them all the
same only distorts and confuses the arguments.
• Present humans are not the blood-drained castrati of our
deepest “civilized” fears, and neither are we the Hobbesian brute hiding our
bestiality in a 3 piece suit. But,
we are an animal with great power, magnified immensely by our technological
productions. The community (or society) has the obligation to maintain an order
of rules and expectations that give the social structure predictability,
opportunity and community standards of protection and safety.
• There can be no “magic bullet” for the gun issue. Much of what is said about guns is
true: in the hands of good, well-trained people guns have positive utility; the
more guns, the more gun crimes and gun accidents; in the tension between the
people and government, an armed population must be treated with more caution
than an unarmed population, even if official forces are overwhelmingly more
powerful; guns distort social relationships and magnify the affects of those
distortions.
As is so often the case today the underlying conditions of
education, honest presentation of data and honest discussion that would give a
chance to deal effectively with the issues are denied us by the misuse of
several other of our massively powerful inventions. As with so much at this critical point in the history of the
species the massive concentrations of wealth and political power will dominate
the outcome for what the economic elite see as beneficial to themselves. Quite
frankly, the rest is sideshow.
