in which I ramble about guns

[threeplusfire]

I've been thinking about this site for a few days now. They lay out their arguements well, and I tend to agree. I'd like to say something, but I don't know what yet. The site contains a large number of by images both hilarious, chilling and thought provoking.

Comments

here we go...

[silentjack.livejournal.com]

I've done what I can, when I've been able or been greeted with an opportunity, to learn both sides. It's difficult for me, though, to loosen the grip I have over my own viewpoint, as hopelessly subjective as it is.

While the site's arguments are rather logical, I still found much of it unduly appalling. Still some subjectivity. And, perhaps I didn't read as much of the site as I should have (again, some subjectivity), but I neglected to see mention of the 2d amendment taking on rational purposes for existence in today's society as the amendment was penned well over two centuries ago and had a totally different connotation.

As far as personal defense is concerned, I still don't buy it, no matter how much I've been able to glean from the pro-arms point. The point of self-defense is to remove oneself from danger with as little injurious action to either party as possible. In a wartime situation, that's much different, of course, but civilians are not military personnel on the field facing obstacles. A criminal attacker has much different intentions from a trained killer and typically won't want to kill unless the attacker is truly psycopathic or engrossed in a bundle of nervous energy. A criminal can be thwarted in cleaner, less destructive ways: knives, fists, etc. The best self-defence is to prevent oneself from being a target in the first place, and while that sounds horribly shallow, there's more truth than idealism in that. If one is aware of his or her surroundings and environment, the populace, and is confident, that person is far less likely to be threatened. I've always considered toting a firearm to be moving too quickly to the last resort in self-defence. I was victimised once, and though it was painful, shameful, and something I've never been able to forget, I feel as though my awareness of self, of my surroundings, has been the best defence I've offered since. I see myself as balanced enough to own a firearm, but I choose not to do so.

Then there is the site's tirades about self-protection and not counting on authorities to be able to assist. Granted, some authorities are not to be trusted. But there is still a large contingent of public service officials that do strive to protect and serve. Taking the site's words about media distortion and throwing it back at them, the scenes we see on tv or hear on the radio about crooked cops are so very few in reality. The "arming yourself to kill the burglar faster" simply undermines the existence of civil protection authorities. It also decimates rule and law. At what point would an armed populace cross the line from self-protection to taking law into one's own hands and coming rather close to being a populace of martial tyrants? I do not necessarily advocate depending upon the civil authorities for my protection, but should the time arise for me to call authorities, police forces are instructed not to use their firearm unless it is deemed the last resort, that that particular situation can't get worse.

So, this is full of holes. But it's the best I can do, trying to be as unbiased as I can. As for the site's author, a proclaimed Buddhist and martial-arts guru and a quasi-pacifist, why does he not elect to carry along a shakuhachi wherever he goes? I see a fundamental flaw in the author's argument, then. A shakuhachi, for instance, makes beautiful music and doubles as a whacking device for the samurai (in case he can't get to his sword). The gun, as much as the author would like to tout it as a weapon for self-defence, is still designed with one ultimate purpose: to be injurious to the point of death. That is the gun's only ultimate function. The gun encompasses no more than that and is a tool designed only for evil. Has he forgotten the five precepts already? Is it human nature to own an instrument of death for express purpose of killing? Most certainly not. Does owning a firearm change one's nature? From what I have encountered, yes. Largley, the religion he claims to practice is based on harmonious coexistence, mutual trust of others, and admonishes taking of a life. He's not being true at all to his religion, even if he is a lay Buddhist. How can I, then, trust a hypocrite? That's all from me. Serious this time.

Re: here we go...

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

I think about being mugged this summer, and what I should have done differently. My attacker was a lot bigger than me, and I sure as hell couldn't have taken her barehanded. If I'd been carrying a gun, what would I have done?

I disagree that a gun's purpose as a tool is inherently evil. I don't believe anything is truly, fundamentally good or evil by nature, but that's a personal quirk.

Re: here we go...

[silentjack.livejournal.com]

I would agree about the capacity for good and evil, but only within the scope of the human mind. All following statements are of my opinion on this:
I believe people have an equal capacity for good and evil and how they are conditioned and how they are exposed to the world influences much of how they lean (negating pyschoses for the moment). The life experience builds up systems of internal checks and balances and if nothing more tries to keep the capacities balanced. Decisions, then, are fundamentally based upon quick interpretations of what interior signals tell us. Our concept of rationality is inherently a balance, and decisions create a construct of our logic through precedent. Some people therefore feel that being cruel and in need of power is rational, and their logic has been skewed through series of unbalanced ideas and deicisions stemming from not maintaining a healthy capacity of good and evil.

Maybe a gun's purpose is not inherently evil, but the hands the weapon falls into are influenced by whatever state of being the "rational" human is in. So, people do kill people. However, the ultimate aim (no puns) of a gun is... what? To hammer down nails that are sticking out of the hardwood? To open beer cans? To shoot things. Targets are one thing, but it's practice for the real deal. Unless a gun owner plans on shooting out tires and nothing else or any other inanimate object, the general purpose of a gun is to injure to the point of death some living being. I concede that sometimes it may perhaps be warranted in extreme situations, but I still tend to think that the human populace is generally good at heart, in mind, and does wish for coexistence. It's difficult to pry my ideal away from my education on the matter. I'm talking in circles and will let myself rest up a bit mor before coming back to this.