I suppose this is what I get for bottling up all my thoughts for a month. My free time has been occupied by one of three topics for the better part of this month. Two of which have been rather constant since I have been out here, theology and learning how to be an A+ certified computer technician. The earlier this month I joined an organization which I have had minimal interaction, however, as part of my plans as a veteran and joyful civilian next year I saw it necessary to look into a topic I have long been an advocate but unsatisfyingly knowledgeable about.
Earlier this month I became a Life member of the National Rifle Association. As politically minded as I am it is odd I took so long to join. Some claim firearm ownership as a boyish hobby which its practitioners have never grown out of. In several ways I see firearm ownership as being the kind of American citizen the Founding Fathers wanted to encourage, an advocate of responsibility, and practitioner of Liberty. I tend to distinguish a civilian is a unofficial individual which inhabits the same country and a citizen is an active member of the country seeking to uphold good law and order.
While riding the Underground in London. I was simultaneously inspired and disappointed at the sight of posters calling for volunteer watchmen. The initiative sought civilians to receive several weeks of training and an opened commitment to a certain number of volunteer hours to be trained patrol officers. It was encouraging because the call for the citizenry’s participation in protecting and upholding order and law, but the disappointment was the fact that unarmed citizens were being utilized to attempt to prevent crime. I found the scope of authority to be comparable to a hall monitor on the streets of London. Their authority could easily be negated and they put themselves in harm's way without an effective means to defend themselves being they were equipped with a Maglite and a whistle. I could see it so clearly.
Watchman: "Stop or I’ll call the unarmed police!"
Criminal: "..."
The best possible outcome would have the perpetrator ceasing the activity and likely escaping the scene unless the Watchmen was able to secretly call for support.
The UK has among the strictest gun control in the world. Disarming a nation does lead to a certain level of success because that nation is an island. However, because guns are so unavailable, stabbings lead the way in violent crimes. The violence still exists the means to carry it out are merely modified. To claim carrying a knife can prevent crime in similar manner as carrying a gun can gives me the image of Peter Pan fighting Captain Hook, dagger vs. a sword.
The nature of projectile weapons greatly increases the safety in the attacker-defender scenario. Imagine witnessing a crime about to occur, if I had a knife intervening would require very close contact with the potential criminal, and such intervention would not be effective. The greater the proximity between the intervening party and the potential offending party, the safer both will be. If the intervening party possesses a firearm there is a significant threat to the would-be-criminal while the intervening citizen can remain in relative safety. It is possible the would-be-criminal might also be armed but that is when surprise and a logical approach to the situation (such as calling law enforcement prior to being involved) could be beneficial. While it would ultimately be safer for the uninvolved civilian to not intervene such a decision is the difference between a social leech and an authentic citizen. In fact, society even praises such intervention and in some states requires it with “Good Samaritan law". On the flip side, in this world of political correctness even the well meaning Good Samaritan can become the criminal.
I wrote a paper in community college which analyzed the relationship between the presence of legal firearms amongst California, Texas, New York and Illinois and the per capita violent crimes involving firearms. I also conducted similar analysis on the national level between the US, Switzerland, UK, Japan and Australia. It was hardly a controlled analysis which could make the cover of Time as a breakthrough in research, but the trends were clearly apparent. Among the most vexing facts the anti-gun crowd must address are the defensive gun uses compared to criminal gun uses. This is the best article I have seen that has addressed the numbers.
I also think common sense is also a strong ally. They are all but clichés and bumper stickers at this point but their truth still echoes. An armed law abiding citizen poses greater safety for the individual because they are able to actively engage those who threaten one's’ safety. Be it the articles I have read by 2nd Amendment advocates, Op-Eds, or the recent attention the Open Carry practitioners have been receiving, I detect a strong sense of personal responsibility amongst those who own firearms. While the self defense argument is hardly what I believe to be the constitutional reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment it is one of the most valid arguments against those who wish to disarm the public.
Perhaps the most entertaining side of the 2nd Amendment is the opposition’s arguments against law abiding citizens possessing weapons. Often they sight criminal activity as the result of firearms, however; the problem with their logic is that it does not apply to the law abiding citizenry. Too frequently it seems the opposition does not distinguish between law abiding armed citizens and criminals. Be it those opposed to private gun ownership, Open Carry, or even the existence of firearms, they speak as though they have this immunity to responsibility and those who are armed are this terrified group of individuals lacking trust in law enforcement as the answer to all of crime. The irony that those who are willing to be able to prevent crime are deemed the fearful is inescapable. There seems to me that too many people want a Utopia and the means to get there is by thinking happy thoughts. I see similar rhetoric from peace advocates who speak as though they have experience fighting for a cause when it never cost them more than a paper cut passing out flyers or a sore throat from shouting for their cause. Perhaps the supreme advantage of being a veteran, my experience of sacrifice and service cannot be questioned.
Epilogue: I upgraded my NRA membership when I was at the 2009 Annual Convention. I am still very aware of what is going on in California and nationally concerning firearms policy and law. I have taken dozens of people to local shooting ranges, many of whom had never shot a firearm before. I think education is the best way to approach this discussion. If you read this, want to go to the range, and are within reasonable distance, let me know. I would be happy to teach you. I did not become a computer technician. Hopefully one day, I will be a Professor of Political Science.
