Guns, Gun Laws, Fools & Knaves

Anyone that seriously believes that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment is a reference to the National Guard might as well stop reading right here - they're wrong and mostly don't want to know what the actual reference means.

That having been said, I read a letter to the editor this morning that set my hair on edge.  Someone somewhere wr0te, apparently totally seriously, that in order to protect the youth of Baltimore we need some more laws to make guns unavailable - since our youth are spending a lot of time shooting at one another.

I don't know where this person lives, but apprently the concept of criminal behavior having as a characteristic the refusal to adhere to laws is foreign to this person - she apparently thinks (or thinks she thinks) that laws result in instant compliance by all who live and breathe.  This is demonstrably false, but never let reality interfere with lofty ideals.

The problem, dear readers, is not that guns exist, it is that people find it somehow useful to misuse them, or to use them in ways contrary to existing laws.  Why should anyone believe for a moment that a felon in possession of a gun (which is against any number of laws) will pay any attention to another law that makes his intended activity illegal?  Criminals do not necessarily choose laws to disobey - they simply disobey whtever laws contradict whatever it is that they plan to do.  

Indeed, all that added laws do is make life harder on the legitimate gun owner who tries to obey a large number of occasionally contradictory laws.  This is particularly true right here in Maryland where, for reasons known only to lawyers, it has become an onerous task to gain permission to carry a gun.  Permits are expensive to get, expensive to renew, and do nothing more than give the police a known subgroup of citizens to bother when someone does something with a gun that contravenes existing laws.  

There is no requirement that criminals have permits - indeed, the Constitution guarantees exemption form any such requirements for criminals because to spread knowledge of their illegal activities contravenes the right to avoid self-incrimination.  That's right, folks - if you are a criminal, you don't have to pay any attention at all to any law requiring permits to own or carry guns - because to record this would require that you supply incriminating evidence on yourself.

I own guns.  I grew up around guns - took safety instruction as a child, shot targes (and rats) practically from the time I could hold  gun.  Even though several different girls dumped me in high school, I did not shoot any of them - I already knew it was a misuse of the firearm, and could get me talked about in unfavorable terms and was generally supremely uncool.  

I know people who never saw a gun until entry into the military - that's OK, because the military generally does a pretty good job of teaching gun safety, and you can really end up in deep poo if you use your issued weapon for anything not specifially ordered - like shooting a superior, or just shooting up the barracks.   

I believe that adults should be permitted to own pistols and rifles if it pleases them and they are not convicted felons - as many in whatever variety as pleases them. I believe it's none of anyone's business what I own or what I keep in my home unless and until I make a prohibited use of whatever the item is.  None of my guns has ever unlocked the safe, loaded itself and bounced down the street looking for someone to shoot. Judhing from the rhetoric I see in the news organs, they must be defective, because a person is never shown to be the problem, the news always lays the problem on the gun, which is inanimate and lacks the capability to self-direct.

At this point, Vermont is the only state that has it right.  Vermont permits any non-felon to carry, either concealed or open.  Do something inappropriate with the weapon and they'll toast you, but as long as there is no inappropriate use, you don't need Mommy's permission.  

The news also loves to write about semi-automatic weapons, which as everyone knows makes it nastier and more dangerous.  I hate to be the one to burst a bubble, but today's double action revolvers work semiautomatically - pull the trigger and it shoots - no cocking, one shot per trigger pull (until all ammunition is used.)  Many folks reading this are confused and think that it means you hold down the trigger and it just sprays all the ammunition it has - this is wrong, but the news will take up that extra space because the writers know that there are folks who don't know this important fact.

Another interestsing fact is that there are many fully automatic weapons out there - and many are legally owned!  ANYONE can own a machine gun if they are permitted to own any other gun - you pay the Federal Government a tax for the privilege (and of course absorb the incredible cost of ammunition.)  There are limits on which may be owned, but it is a fact that ownership is not a blanket illegality.  Interestingly enough,  only one legally-owned machine gun has been used in a crime - and it was one belonging to a police department, used by a police officer.  The rest of those that are owned whose owners have paid for the privilege have never been used in a crime.  Your daily newspaper would never tell you that.

What is it about guns that fascinates me so?  It isn't the noise - it is the fact that they are all mechanical, depend on lighting a fire in an enclosed place to cause anything to happen, and are reliable and predictable.  The engineering, the motion of the parts, how safety parts work, all the mechanical aspects fascinate me.  An hour on the firing range will help you focus - after a bit, your mind does not wander - its sole concern is holding the gun, squeezing the trigger and not moving in a way to make the shot have a poor result.  All extaneous BS goes away, and you emerge from your hour or two refreshed and relaxed - because you haven't had all that nonessential crap eating away at your mind, taking away from the time you have to do important things.  It's even good therapy.  It's a lot safer than having road rage on the way home from work, or being so distracted that driving becomes a secondary task.

If you find guns scary, it is probably because you have no experience with them, but that's OK - I would never require that someone own something that induces fear. Do, however, take the time to learn about something before you dismiss it as intrinsically dangerous.  And please don't be fooled by the "More Laws" folks - lots of them are lawyers and have a vested interest in keeping the legal system riddled with rules that no mere person can understand.  

And please bear in mind - a gun does not a criminal make, nor does a gun law discourage a criminal from pursuing his chosen profession.  We all have choices - demonizing an inanimate objec will however derail us from going after the real problem.

/Rant Off