The gun control logic goes something like this. Firearms are designed with one purpose in mind and that’s to kill people. Citizens really have no need for firearms if the only purpose is to kill people. Therefore, we’d all be safer if citizens had no firearms. For the simple minded, this is an adequate proof of gun control’s logic and has the added benefit of addressing their inner fears of violence directed against themselves or their families.

However, each year, far more holes are punched in paper targets than people or animals. Some folks like to hunt, others like the security of having a firearm for personal defense, others collect firearms like some collect American Girl dolls or antique cars. Postmodernism with its concept of personal values being completely relative should support firearm ownership for this reason alone. Yet, when put to the test, even postmodernism occasionally supports absolute values, like banning all firearms for the purpose of public safety.

Where the compartmentalization comes in is that total firearm confiscation is an absolute restriction on a citizen’s freedom without any guarantees the restriction will accomplish its stated purpose. Rather than see the complexity of the problem they’re claiming to solve, those with an irrational fear of violence put forth the solution as a simple win-win proposition for everyone.

But what if rational people demanded guarantees and addressed the problem in all its complexity with equally absolute restrictions on other constitutional freedoms to ensure the stated purpose was actually achieved? First, we should clearly define the problem. Are we trying to eliminate mass murder by an individual or individuals, address irrational fears of violence among some citizens or both? Defining the question helps frame the potential solutions.

For example, the largest mass killing in American history (outside of war) was the twin towers/Pentagon massacre. Suppose we demanded, as a condition for surrendering our firearms, that all visitors from the Middle East or any other nation or region linked to terrorism be completely banned from visiting the United States? Suppose we demanded that visitors from those countries currently here be rounded-up and forcibly deported. To me, this seems a harsh but reasonable precaution if we want to eliminate mass killings by terrorists who are also foreign nationals.

Or, what if we demanded that those, like Cho, with sociopath, loner profiles be placed in secure mental institutions until a panel of 15 psychiatrists would unanimously certify that not only were they cured, but their previous sociopathic symptoms had completely disappeared? Locked away, these individuals would have no access to firearms, or to dynamite, or able to drive their SUV into a crowd of students, or drive a plane into a skyscraper, etc. This also seems a harsh but reasonable precaution if the stated purpose is really to eliminate mass killings by domestic terrorists rather than to address irrational fears of violence.

For the gun control advocates, such absolute restrictions on other freedoms always raise the cry of what relation these restrictions have with firearms? Even when the stated purpose is to eliminate mass killings, the issue somehow always comes back to firearms and, in my opinion, they are really saying “I’m afraid of guns and want society to pay attention to my fears.”

If we raise the issue of banning/deporting all foreign nationals from regions linked to terrorism, the immediate response is that would be “unfair” since we don’t know that everyone from these regions has terrorism as their intention. Kind of like saying there is no proof that all firearm owners intend a mass killing. But, if we deliberately compartmentalize the solutions, immigration and mental health restrictions can be considered completely separate issues from gun control. Then there are the pragmatists that say banning/deporting foreigners would be bad for business and other countries might retaliate by banning Americans.

So, from a purely pragmatic position, would banning firearms have any downside consequences? Using a macabre calculus, are more people saved or killed each year through firearm ownership? It’s grimly amusing that my local newspaper consistently refuses to print stories where firearms saved a life, even when the story concerns people within California or neighboring communities. Ironically, fatal shootings from other communities nearby, within California and within other states are frequently reported. Only when the “firearms saved my life” story involves local citizens are the facts reported. The editors have decided that stories from other locales depicting firearm ownership in a positive light sends the wrong message about firearms and aren’t newsworthy. And, this isn’t just a local phenomena within my community of card carrying liberals, it’s consistent within many mass media markets throughout the United States.

Out of self-defense (no pun intended), the NRA publishes a column every other month in its members’ magazine detailing 8 to 10 reported incidents throughout America where firearms saved a life, thwarted a robbery, home invasion, rape, etc. A brief synopsis of the incident is reported, the reporting newspaper’s name and location is given and the date of the story is included. Apparently, firearms do save lives, so, pragmatically, should we create a balance sheet of lives saved vs. lives lost and act strictly based on what the numbers tell us?

If we can avoid clearly defining the problem, compartmentalization works its magic and we can make a case for universal firearm confiscation. Leaving citizens defenseless seems logical if the outcome is universal safety from random violence. But, when the problem is defined as safety from any form of mass murder, equally draconian restrictions that go a long way toward prevention are consistently rationalized as being “unfair” or “impractical”.

“All I know is that these kinds of acts of violence are far more prevalent in American culture than in any other — acts of violence that flow not out of political or ideological agendas, but out of personal alienation that manifests itself in senseless, random acts.”

I do not believe these acts of violence are devoid of a political/ideological motivation. Guns have always been widely available to the American people; people wore guns to church in the Old West, but someone “going postal” is a relatively recent phenomenon in America. I suggest that the reason is that peoples’ attitudes toward each other have changed. Did you read the article, “Was Cho Taught To Hate?”, I linked in my last post above? If I constantly tell you that “John is no good”; “John is bad”; “John is a SOB”, eventually you will hate John even though you perhaps never even met him.

A university professorate with an obvious hate-American agenda is not talking this nonsense just to bump their teeth together; they are doing it for a reason; and they cannot preach hate and have it fall on completely deaf ears all the time. Eventually someone will act on such motivational oratory. Last year, there was a university student who drove a SUV into a group of fellow students waiting for a bus. He said that he did it to get back at the Great Satan (US) for its unfair foreign policy toward Islamic countries. Who told him that? Therefore, I don’t believe these violent acts are “random” either. They don’t just happen; THEY ARE CAUSED.

One last question to consider why it seems to be a uniquely American problem: what other countries tolerate treason and hate for themselves as much as the United States?

In any case, I was trying to explore, however feebly, some possible causes — the cultural backdrop against which such acts occur. The details can be debated, but the violence is terribly real and trafic — as over 30 families who are grieving today can attest.

“. . .was Cho taught to hate? . . . Was his pathology enabled by the PC university? Or to ask the question differently — was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life?

“And THAT answer is readily available on the websites of Cho’s English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/was_cho_taught_to_hate.html

To me, Americans fall into 3 groups on the gun control issue: the No Worries group, the Fraidy Cats group and the Wet My Pants group. This scientific classification scheme came about due to an editorialist’s opinion piece in my local newspaper 3 years ago. But first I should say I live in a Northern California bedroom community, heavily matriarchal in nature and the local newspaper (which doesn’t pay its writers much) is consistently liberal on all issues, whether highly emotional or benign ones.

The commentator wrote his opinion piece with passion and a rare degree of honesty: guns scared him witless. He readily admitted he didn’t care what right the 2nd Amendment guaranteed, was indifferent as to what constitutes “a well-regulated militia”, didn’t wish to debate which engineering design makes a firearm into an “assault rifle” – basically, he just didn’t want to get shot. Going into Oakland scared him; young black men there had guns and weren’t afraid to use them, he worried about his crazy relatives and what they might do to him, worried about whether his daughters were safe – you get the picture, this guy was functional enough to hold a job, but at the same time a complete mess.

Anyone with the sensitivity of an artichoke could read his words and immediately sense he was irrationally frightened of violence, particularly gun violence. He obsessively fixated on the violence in our society and spent several paragraphs describing it in gory detail. And, in general, this obsessive fixation with violence is the mainstay and running theme that permeates all the gun control arguments.

Being only slightly more sensitive than an intelligent artichoke, I still managed to reach a sort of epiphany as this poor guy bared his inner fears. And realized there are literally millions of Americans like him with an irrational fear of violence. Yes, fear is a healthy reaction to potential danger, but where do you draw the line between rational and irrational fear? So, the Wet My Pants group is the classification for those poor individuals that walk around each day with fears neither you nor I can readily share or truly understand.

And, logically, why shouldn’t there be this apparently functional, but psychologically disturbed group of Americans? Turning again to Patrick Mulligan’s comments, it’s the violence, both real and imaginary, lovingly offered up by the news and entertainment media on a 24/7 basis that fuels their inner demons. Take a movie like “Lethal Weapon – Part Whatever” and notice the policemen good guys discharge their firearms more often in the line of duty than the entire Los Angeles Police Dept. does in a single year out in the real world. Agreed, the movie violence is highly exaggerated, but it’s also depicted with great skill and very convincing. The Wet My Pants group is constantly bombarded with these dark images and sounds of violence and, with their mental state and lack of coping skills, this proves to be a very unhealthy combination.

Moving along the spectrum, the Fraidy Cats group differs only in degree and how well they manage their fears. The Wet My Pants group have intensely visceral reactions to real or imagined violence, while the Fraidy Cats do a better job hiding their fear with rational arguments. For example, a mother finds her children playing in a neighbor’s home, the neighbor has disassembled his rifle and is cleaning it on the kitchen table while all the kids are watching tv in the family room. Not necessarily in this order, the mom screams, gathers her own kids and whisks them from the neighbor’s home while vowing never to return to a house with firearms and loudly wondering how her neighbors can claim to protect their own kids. In her head, the mere presence of a firearm around her kids (or any kids) means they face imminent death. No, it’s certainly not rational behavior and no amount of rational argument will appease her.

This hypothetical mom is obviously in the Wet My Pants group. In my community, such irrationality isn’t considered a character defect; in fact, this mom would have a very understanding and loyal support group among the other moms. But, the Fraidy Cats group aren’t prone to such obvious irrationality, although they still have the underlying fear. Trying to appear rational, they insist there is some combination of laws that will solve the firearms problem. No amount of argument will convince them otherwise and they constantly need new firearm laws passed to make them feel in control. What they really want is to confiscate all guns, just like the Wet My Pants group, but need to appear as the voice of reason within the debate.

For example, my community passed a local ordinance banning 50 caliber rifles. The thinking was that a sniper with a 50 caliber armor piercing, incendiary round would shoot a fuel tank creating a firestorm within the town. No matter that 50 caliber rifles start at $2,500 and go up from there or that these rifles are extremely rare, the argument makes sense to them. After all, their logic goes, what does anyone need a 50 caliber rifle for? Of course, what does anyone need a 7,000 pound, $50,000 SUV that looks like an army vehicle for either (and our community has many of these Hummers)? And, since it’s just a local ordinance, what prevents a sniper in a neighboring community from bringing the 50 caliber rifle into their midst or even shooting from beyond their borders (50 calibers have incredible range)?

It wasn’t a credible threat (more like something out of a movie), but the Fraidy Cats are convinced their arguments appear logical in banning a rare firearm owned by maybe two local people. Fraidy Cats see the NRA the same way political conservatives see the ACLU – an organization of fanatics that somehow controls government officials. At its high point, the NRA had maybe 3 million members at most or one percent of Americans who belong to it – yet it mysteriously controls Congress and the White House. But, for the Fraidy Cats, the underlying reason is that hating the NRA is preferable to constant and humiliating fear; self righteous anger makes you feel in control and is usually powerful enough to temporarily dispel the fear.

Turning back to the author’s essay, why wouldn’t Americans accept more “common sense” firearm laws? One reason is that many Americans belong within the No Worries group – people who have a rational fear of violence, but don’t allow it to consume them. The No Worries group realizes the Fraidy Cats, cheered on by the Wet My Pants group, are irrational and are constantly proposing schemes to control their fellow citizens. But the problem is their schemes never work. The No Worries group is to be legally disarmed, all the while realizing our society can’t effectively protect them.

And, they’re starting to suspect these constant gun control schemes aren’t rational arguments by concerned citizens, but rather pleas for attention and cries for help. You can’t trust your well being or that of your family to irrational people and the arguments of the Fraidy Cats appear more and more irrational. Referring back to the ban on 50 caliber weapons, the city mothers point out that since the ordinance was passed we’re all measurably safer. After all, there hasn’t been a sniper attack on the town fuel tanks by crazed NRA members with 50 caliber rifles. Who can argue with such logic?

And FYI, automatic weapons are currently illegal under the 1934 National Firearms Act without special permission from the Treasury Department, registration with the ATF, FBI screening and background check, and a $200 per year tax. And “assault weapons” as defined by law can include a semi automatic pistol with a magazine with more than an 11 round capacity. Setting all of that aside, to carry a concealed firearm on your person requires at least one background check, a several week waiting period, filed fingerprints, registration of the gun, and a separate permit to conceal and carry. Do you honestly think that the thugs who commit crimes with firearms on a day to day basis are really going to the local gun store and going through these measures to purchase their guns? No. They buy them illegally on the street, and use them illegally on the street. You can put as many restrictions as you want on guns and it won’t prevent gun violence from happening. If you don’t believe that, consider that in 2003 gun violence in England, where all firearms are completely banned for all intents and purposes, rose 35% with around 10,000 incidents involving firearms that year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm). I guess the wild wild west has made its way over to Europe, the land of peace and harmony. The Virginia Tech incident is a rare exception where a “legal” gun was used in the shooting (“legal” in the sense that it was purchased legally). Nevertheless, the gun would have been illegal to conceal and carry as the perpetrator did, and was illegal on campus even with a concealed weapons permit. The only way to stop guns from being used in crimes is to repeal the second amendment, ban all firearms, find, confiscate and destroy all the guns currently in circulation and prevent any from ever being sneaked into the country (something, I might point out, that we haven’t been able to do with about 500,000 human beings every year since 2000). I don’t see how more rhetoric and legislation will solve that issue.