Son of a Gun

Bang Bang Space Travelers. Keep honking, I'm reloading the rhetorical six-gun. Lock stock and and two smoking rhetorical barrels. Let's chit chat rata tat tat about guns.

I own two guns. I never asked for either. They were gifts. One was a rifle gifted to me by my grandfather. It has a small caliber, but a decent scope. The other is a 38 Chief special, a small 5-shot snub-nosed revolver. You might recall this gun from my Home on the Range vLog. I don't desire the liability of owning either gun so I've asked a family friend to store them in his gun safe. I'm not afraid of guns, I just don't want the responsibility.

I don't object to gun ownership. I don't think that if you own guns you're some nut-job either. That said, there are plenty of gun-nuts, and they aren't relegated to some obscure corner of society; they're everywhere. It's not simply enough to be able to own a firearm, but rather they believe that they should be able to own any number of guns and of any type.

There are two major arguments I hear in regards to the ownership of advanced weaponry. The first is self defense, the second is that it is a form of control to keep the government in check. I'd like to address both of these. I think however now is a good time to talk about some terms.

An assault rifle is defined by it's ability to have selective rate of fire, intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

An assault weapon is defined by having both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

There is often some overlap in these terms, but in general these terms refer to legal language as outlined by the laws of the United States. Specifically, the term assault weapon draws a great deal of controversy from gun advocates. They say that any weapon is an assault weapon if used to assault someone. Cute, but hardly the point. The Assault Weapon Ban written in 1994 was allowed to expire under President George W Bush. There has been a great deal of debate on what the effect of that has been. Other than debate, people have enjoyed frothing at the mouth.

The argument of self defense is certainly a justifiable one. I have no objection to a person purchasing and owning a gun for self protection. As an engineer however, I have something to say about what guns are designed to protect and what guns are designed specifically for purposes of attack. Engineering is more than the fabrication of a item. It is the specific tailoring of an item to a specific objective with defined parameters.

E.g. - In formula car racing, the aerodynamic package will be changed each race and tailored for specific tracks. Tracks with long straight lengths will lead a design group to minimize drag, while a track with many tight curves would lead a team to optimize down-force. Either way, asking what type of car is the best is a questoin only answered given a specific context.

Some firearms are certainly well engineered for self-protection. Their engineers clearly understand that the ability to operate a weapon properly and accurately is balanced with the ability to transport or store the weapon. Similarly, engineering a weapon for the purposes of attacking will have different concerns and therefore will drive different design elements. To pretend all firearms are equal or even designed to accomplish the same goals is foolish. I seriously doubt that the creators of the AK-47 or the M-16 market their weapon as anything but the ultimate in attack.

Certainly, a sword is nothing but a large knife, but to pretend it was designed to chop vegetables in your kitchen would be to ignore the sword's proper context. This is the problem. Some groups are arguing that they have the right to chop their vegetables however they like, and when challenged on that front they are hiding behind some strawman argument that they have a right to own knives!

Here's the formula: Take an extreme position. When confronted, hide behind a reasonable position. Then argue there is no difference between your position and the reasonable one. By doing this, the reasonable position is used as some sort of umbrella argument for all positions. Argumentum ad reductio. This is frustrating.

Many argue that assault weapons are simply classifications which are only cosmetic. I'm hard pressed to understand how a flash suppressor is a cosmetic change on a weapon. Flash suppressors have a very specific function, and it is not a defensive feature. It is a feature which tactically aides in concealing your position. If your position is concealed, who are you defending yourself from? What defense fantasy are you in where this is self defense?

The second major argument I hear is that the reason the constitution grants gun ownership is because citizen's reserve the right to defend themselves... from the government itself. This idea is that basically that the central or state government could become out of control and it would be the public's job to take control. No, I'm serious. I hear this one very frequently.

While it is only speculation whether or not we've ever needed such a protection from our own government, it's obvious when inspecting our history that if we ever did need it to fight a police state (Japanese internment camps, Hollywood blacklists, National guard opening fire on students...), we didn't use it. In spite of this, we do NOT have to speculate on the effect gun ownership has had on the household. Perhaps, the recent attempt by the Michigan Christian Hutaree Militia to kill police officers and start an uprising is what the founders meant. I hear plenty of dommsdaying about how Obama is a socialist, Marxist, communist, secret muslim, and eater of babies (Bobs ya uncle!). I hear plenty about the inevitable sky-is-falling end of our republic. So here is my question: Why aren't out proud gun owners storming the capital? Seems like they are the same people complaining about Obama and the creeping red menace. Isn't this exactly what the argument calls for? Aren't we supposed to be putting our government in check? I'm calling the bluff. The Hutarees are the embodiment of this belief, and we can see that this kind of illogic leads only to madness. I say for all the tough guy posturing of the gun lobby, they seem perfectly fine with this argument... as long as it's somebody else.

Plenty of ammo left here, and I know there are additional arguments. I see them however as being closely enough related to the two I choose that I did not feel they demanded direct addressing.

I believe that the 2nd amendment does grant the right to personal gun ownership. I however am not as dumb to think that it grants citizens a carte blanche access to any weaponry they desire. The citizens, state and central government have a real compelling interest in limiting access to this kind of weaponry. Finding the balance of individual and civil interests will not resolve to people owning more and more and more guns.

Americans should additionally know about how our gun laws and access affects the world outside of our borders. Recently in a speech to congress, the Mexican president requested of the USA to better regulate our access to guns. He explained to congress that when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, the cartels have become more armed, and they are using American purchased weapons. 80% of the weapons seized from the drug cartels are purchased in the USA. With the body count rising in Mexico, we are accessory to this violence. I defy anyone to explain to me how their desire to own an assault weapon is worth this. Gun apologists that say the cartels would get their weapons elsewhere, sure. However, they choose to get them from us, and it's because it's easier and cheaper. We're their favorite. We arm them, and we buy their drugs.

Dear Space Travelers, we live in a crazy and violent world. I only hope that people realize that no solution is to be found in embracing either madness or violence. I'll close with a story.

Yesterday I went to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian with my mother. She has been an anthropologist her entire life. She knows a great deal about the native peoples, and as such was able to add quite an enlightening effect on the museum's displays. She told me the origin of the phrase "bury the hatchet." It involves the Iroquois Nation's foundation. There were six tribes in total that came together, but they did not wish to come together peacefully and there was much blood shed. Finally, they met in peace and formed their confederacy. Their confederacy helped protect them from the ever expanding colonial presence in North America (they were not forced West). It began with them meeting in peace. In that meeting, a great pit was dug. Into that pit, the weapons of the six tribes were placed. They covered the pit in soil and planted a tree on top. To this day, the symbol of the Iroquois Nation is that tree.

If you think you are in threat of your government abusing you, think about burying the hatchet. They do not regret their choice. If you think you prize your gun, imagine prizing a weapon you built with your own hands. They still put it into the earth.

We cannot let gun ownership be the practice of Mutually Assured Destruction on the individual level. Such is suicide.