The Gun Debate is more complex than ‘good’ or ‘bad’
The mass shooting problem in America won’t be solved until we stop taking sides against each other. The complexity of the issue demands we set aside emotions and focus on the hard truths.
To say that the Buffalo, NY mass shooter is pure evil doesn’t do the act justice, but your humble writer cannot summon any descriptor besides evil. Consider the person that is willing to walk into a crowd of random people and open fire upon them. Now add a hateful, racist motive on top of it; and then add the cowardice of targeting innocent, unarmed, helpless victims. There is no other word in the English language that can approach the scope of detest and horror that we feel towards these individuals besides evil.
As Left and Right media inevitably twist into politics and debate, the gun argument reignites with new fire. Hungrily clamoring for the quickest post and the most salacious headline, reporters and newscasters will happily advance the divide in America so long as they get some advertising kickback. But as the news desks and caps-locked Tweets boil over once more, a question rose to me during a moment of meditation that can encapsulate the cultural fissure succinctly and concisely.
Are guns intrinsically tools of offense or defense?
As with all things, being the first voice to speak ensures you will be the least informed. Without the context of investigation or opposing perspective, the words of someone who fires off an article during a developing story are words to condescend and lecture, not inform and converse. So with the benefit of time taken to cool my boiling blood and let the truth rise out of the impulsive headlines, I’ll explain my position plainly, and then elaborate.
The Main Idea
In a different future article, I’m going to handle the 2nd Amendment itself. But that is a topic for a different day, and for this article, I’ll start by answering the question I posed.
Guns are intrinsically tools of offense, but the ultimate destiny of each weapon is entirely dependent on the person wielding it.
Let me explain.
The gun community has a bad habit of watering down or diminishing the power that firearms have. People will say things like, “Guns aren’t designed to kill, they’re designed to launch a projectile,” and other crazy things of the ilk. The statement technically contains grains of truth, but it dances around the issue and the full context. So before we continue, we need to establish one thing outright; the firearm’s inception and design intent was as a sword.
A sword can be used to deflect and block another weapon, but unlike a shield, that is not its design purpose. Guns are no different, they simply carry a higher combat effectiveness. There is a distaste I have with the term “Modern Sporting Rifle” which is what many companies have renamed their AR and AK platforms in an attempt to appease people with the phraseology. But it’s just a way of watering down what the weapon system is, like a teen action TV show substituting the word “kill” with the word “end” or “silence.” It’s the same thing, just more innocuous. AR-15s are fantastic hog and coyote guns, but they’re also extremely effective home defense weapons. We should be able to call them “tactical defensive carbines,” and it should not carry any negative connotations by itself. While the invention of the firearm was intended to be used as an offensive tactical advantage against another human, it is unfair to blanket sweep and say that offensive attack is every gun’s inherent destiny. Moreover, it’s dishonest and manipulative to paint all gun owners as being ticking time bombs of violence, or that by nature of being a gun owner we are de facto responsible for the actions of all other gun users.
Guns are weapons, and guns can be extremely dangerous. They were designed with the sole intention of waging war and reaping souls. But as much as it may seem obvious to some, this is simply not reason to ban or take away guns from regular people. To purport this theory is to assume that we can attain a semblance of reality where death and murder, malice and hatred, violence and might no longer exist. Even if a gun ban would solve gun violence in America (which is doubtful at best), it would not stop violence of every other ilk. Bows, machetes, bats, knives, and cars would become the preferred method of meting out death. I believe that the assumption that we can attain total peace and an absence of violence is utopic, and on a spiritual level I do not believe that it is possible on this plane of existence.
My guns are shields; they are used to protect life. A criminal’s guns are swords; they are used to snuff out life. Two identical weapon systems, wielded by two polar opposite human beings. You are not allowed to revoke my right to defend my wife based on the actions of someone else, just as I am not allowed to revoke your right to free speech based on unpleasant words spoken by someone else.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” has dissolved to platitude, but the core message remains true. My father’s 7mm hunting rifle has only been used to take deer, but it has the capacity to end innocent life if placed in the wrong hands. This is true across all weapons, as well. The only reason my shiny Henckels santoku would render human flesh would be in someone else’s hands.
Guns were designed for offense. But whether any given firearm is used for offense or defense depends completely on the person driving that weapon system. A racist psychopath drove a Dodge Challenger through a crowd in Charlottesville. Dodge Challengers stretch over six feet wide, tip the scales to 4,400 pounds, and carry enough horsepower and torque to heave through fences and pedestrians. It seems specially designed to be a battering ram.
Except that it isn’t.
It’s a car.
And I hear you, fellow reader. “AR-15s are specifically designed to kill. Cars are not.” As we covered before, you’re right. Guns are weapons. Weapons are designed for harm, and cars are not. But that highlights my point; even though the car wasn’t designed for death, it was still used to deal death because of the person behind the wheel. Just like a gun, the ultimate destiny of that car’s purpose is up to the user. The purpose of the Charlottesville tragedy is not to compare the tool used, it is to compare the person behind it. Just because the capacity for death is higher with a firearm doesn’t mean the danger is different if both are being wielded by an evil person.
Again, I reiterate; guns are intrinsically tools of offense, but the ultimate destiny of each weapon is entirely dependent on the person wielding it.
How many people would you murder wielding an AR-15? One? Ten? Fifty? For me, the number is zero; yet people are trying to outlaw my AR-15. How many people would you murder behind the wheel of a Dodge Challenger? One? Ten? Fifty? For me, the number is still zero; and nobody is trying to outlaw Dodge Challengers.
A Natural Human Response
The gun community needs to acknowledge something flat out; anti-gun people are not their enemy. Being a gun enthusiast, I’m not going to attempt to tell people who tilt more anti-gun what to do, so I’m simply going to guide my own fellow enthusiasts.
Whenever a tragic mass shooting happens, people immediately kickstart their ban engines again. It’s not because they want you in particular to be disadvantaged in an emergency situation. It’s not that they wish harm to you or your family. Quite simply, they see a problem and they’re going with the simplest solution. “Someone got killed with a gun, so we need to take away the guns.” This is a very natural human response, and I firmly believe that. Mass shootings are sensationalized because versus all other forms of crime and death they are extremely rare. But saying this to someone who has lost a loved one to gun violence does nothing to comfort or explain. They want revenge and justice, however they see fit, and it is a very human reaction. Don't treat them as your enemy, respect them and attempt to understand and work with them.
The very term “anti-gun” has been tossed around in Right Wing rhetoric with complete foolish ignorance, and has been unfairly expanded to include those who simply question aspects of gun culture. This has the potential (if not the promise) to widen the gap between us in the gun community and people outside of it, when we should be working to bring them along for the conversation. If somebody simply thinks that my obsession with the Desert Tech SRS-A2 is strange, that’s not cause to call them an anti-gunner. We all come into life with our own experiences and perspectives. We in the gun community must be aware, respectful, and honoring to their opinions. None of them arrived at their opinions by accident or whim, and if we ask them to respect gun culture, we damn well better be at least attempting to reciprocate.
In all of this, however, people who are more anti-gun would benefit from understanding our point of view. The way the legislation is always proposed, the way that the pundits always phrase it, the way the discourse always goes, is that the end goal of gun control is to take all of the guns away, even from law abiding citizens. Our perspective is that this solution fails to understand the long term ramifications, second and third order consequences, cost to the American taxpayer, cost to day-to-day safety and security, and net effect on the target. We feel that these blanket bans would handicap a law abiding citizen’s capacity for self defense, at little to no effect on the actual criminals themselves.
It’s kind of synonymous with a valley experiencing drought. The solution? Flood the valley. Now there’s wet dirt, right? The problem is that the drought isn’t even solved, and massive collateral damage has been inflicted along the way. The path to repairing the damage incurred by the flood has the potential to exceed the time it would have taken to do it the right way, but the flood was the easier option. And when the flood damage comes to roost, the pro-flood estimation can blame the anti-flood estimation and accuse them of not allowing the flood to be carried out “properly.”
Complex problems often have simple solutions, and there is a line between simplicity and carelessness. But I ask you, the gun enthusiast, to temper your dislike of “anti-gun” people with humanity, humility, and understanding.
A Cultural Divide
The type of person who views one specific weapon system as the source of evil is just as dangerous as the type of person who would relish the opportunity to be the ‘good guy with a gun.’ Neither one is as nuanced, educated, or thoughtful of a standpoint as it could be.
The gun community is very uncomfortable with the fact that guns allow criminals to carry out their acts more quickly, more efficiently, and with a higher body count. They feel that saying this admits that guns are dangerous, and they don’t want to touch anything that would discredit their ideal of placing the blame completely at the feet of the perpetrator.
Likewise, the anti-gun lobby is very uncomfortable with cases where a defender has used their gun not only to protect their life and others, but to stop the aggressor from advancing. They feel that saying this admits that civilians can be empowered to protect themselves, and they don’t want to touch anything that would discredit their ideal of placing the blame completely at the feet of the weapon.
Both sides’ reluctance to admit facts that conflict with their narrative is simply derived form our headline-focused world that immediately attributes the worst intention to every sentence, devoid of nuance or discussion. This creates a stalemate where the logical center (where we punish the perpetrator to the fullest extent of the law, but acknowledge that his weapon aided in his behavior) has fallen away. Without the evil person, that weapon would simply sit in a safe and collect rust, but we also have to be honest and acknowledge that the weapon was chosen for a reason.
To paint my guns as being purely defensive would be misleading and inaccurate. I am a gun enthusiast, and my weapons are also used for recreation and hunting. Tools are not singular in their jobs. A claw hammer can be a nail driver, nail remover, pry bar, murder weapon, paperweight; you name it. All of my guns serve multiple purposes. My 10mm 1911 was purchased as mountain lion defense while camping and hiking, but I would be lying if I said the heftier recoil and timeless design didn’t put a smile on my face.
I don’t see myself as the ‘good guy with a gun.’ I think that mindset is pervasive, sanctimonious, unrealistic, and dangerous. But every single day I strap up my Sig Sauer P365, concealing it so that nobody is the wiser but I always have it on me. If the day ever comes that I have to draw it, I am going to be traumatized. I am a very sensitive and spiritual person, and I am mortified at the thought of taking a soul. But at the end of the day, I'm going home to my wife and family, and nobody is allowed to take that from me.
I don’t carry because I think I’m going to be a hero and save the town; I carry because I understand the inherent risks associated with existing in America, and I’m going to take every advantage I can. Returning home to my family is more important than preserving the safety of someone who has chosen to attack me, and it’s even more important than any emotional trauma I may sustain in the act of defense. This nuance and cultural fissure must be addressed. Gun enthusiasts must understand why people think gun ownership sets dangerous precedents, and they must understand why we think guns are necessary. We must understand each other.
And even in writing those words, usage of the terms we and them feels so absolute and so divisive.
I want you, dear reader, to understand that whenever the gun control legislation looms, my thought is not, “My family is about to be safer from criminals.” My thought is, “You’re about to make it harder for me to protect my family from the criminals that don’t care about your laws in the first place.” The evildoer cares not for your conversations, debates, convictions, car stickers, or lawn signs. The only thing that a gun free zone assures is that nobody will be there to return fire.
Upon entering the food court of Colorado’s Park Meadows Mall from the parking lot, I was met by white signs that read “Guns not allowed on premises.” Passing through the glass doors, I was met with a sea of people. The food court was jam packed. There was scarcely three feet between every individual, and the spacing repeated itself through the entire several thousand square foot court. There was nothing to suggest that a gunman would be stopped at the door; there was no metal detector, no guard, no security checkpoint. It was just a vinyl sign. To think that a gunman would see the sign and think, “Dammit, I can't bring my gun in there,” is literally to think they will say “Dammit, they outlawed murder.” The sign didn’t indicate to me that this was a safe haven free from violence; rather, it promised that there was not a single person in that crowd who could stop a gunman walking past that sign. And the security guards? Armed with batons and pepper spray: completely and totally combat ineffective against an active shooter. The gun free zone before me was stuffed with hundreds of normal, innocent, unarmed, helpless people.
“How could you possibly think that? You’re a sick individual. That’s not what normal people think.”
I understand, and I disagree. Criminals are not normal people, and gunmen do not think the way you do. If you cannot summon the horrific scenarios that they create, you increase your likelihood to be victimized to them. If you do not allow yourself to go to those dark places, anyone who does beats you. They win.
Closing
People attribute the death of innocents as the “price we pay for gun freedom.” They’ll use emotion to back you into a corner, accusing you of murder and saying that the blood rests at your feet. And every time, I’m unmoved.
I don’t want innocent people to die. I don’t want anyone to cry or bury their loved ones in a death that is so avoidable. But the solution to this epidemic is not to render me combat ineffective, and the path to the solution should be lain with bricks of understanding and facts, not emotion and platitude. If the left and right policymakers could look at both the guns and the people behind them at the same time then maybe we could make some headway. BUT THEY WON’T. AND IT’S MADDENING.
What I want is to keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths, while preserving the overwhelming advantage my guns give me at defending my life and the lives of my loved ones. I’m a small man. The vast majority of the American populace is much larger, taller, heavier, and stronger than me. I shouldn’t be required to meet an attacker with melee weapons, I should be able to take the field and tilt it completely and unquestionably in favor of my wife and I. She is the love of my life, and I will cleave through anyone who threatens her. But I shouldn’t have to wrestle a 6’ 4” 350 pound monster hand-to-hand just to stop him from raping and murdering her. A firearm gives me that tactical advantage.
“All guns are bad,” or “all guns are good” is such a barbarically stupid and simplistic way to tackle this real and heavy issue. Nobody seems to be taking it seriously, and all anyone wants to do is reinforce their preconceived notions.
“Gun owners are all psychopaths,”
“This is just proof I need more guns,”
“Your inaction makes you a murderer,”
“Gun death is just part of life,”
“You’re the problem,”
“There is no problem.”
The divide is infuriating.
Somewhere in all of this there is a solution, a middle ground that we can reach. We have to be sophisticated and intelligent enough to reach a solution that doesn’t revolve around nuking all the guns or leaving everything unchanged. I invite you, I plead with you, and I leave you with a simple request.