Saturday, July 21, 2012

Spoons Don't Make You Fat

They don't even make it that much easier. You can still get plenty fat without a spoon on hamburgers, hot dogs, potato chips, soda, milkshakes, etc., etc. And it's not like you can sneak a spoon into a crowded theater and make yourself fat in a few short seconds.

The poor analogy of the spoon is used to promote the idea that guns are just tools. It's the bad guys who use them badly, not the good guys who just shoot animals or targets and are ready whenever to prevent a bad guy from shooting, raping or robbing - even if this happens very, very, rarely. I don't have stats, but common sense tells me there are far more gun wounds and deaths from the accidental harm to children who find a gun in the wrong place (or domestic violence) than any bad guys taken out by the good guys with concealed or open-carry weapons or a gun in their nightstand. (Prove me wrong.) Even if gun proponents say everyone should be better trained on gun safety and gun use so they won't be misused, isn't that a form of regulation? Yeah.

I've already provided my bumper-sticker soundbites in last night's posting. Am I upset? Yeah. With great respect to the innocent victims in Colorado, my heart breaks for them and their families. I want to do something. This is it. For all who say it's not appropriate to "politicize" a tragedy like this, I am only responding to the gun proponents who went up with their stuff pretty quickly yesterday including the silly spoon analogy. This includes some very good friends on Facebook. I just don't get it.

I don't know that there is any conceivable law that could have prevented the recent act of terror in the movie theater. But there is a culture in the United States that seems to believe that guns are tools for the solution to problems - whether it be taking out bad guys or rising up to preserve our freedoms. (¡Ay, ay, ay!) Disturbed people buy into this in their own fevered minds to the detriment of our civil society. But I maintain it is all the nominally sane ones who promote our gun culture without regulation who are the problem.

I love shooting. My dad introduced me to it and there was Scout camp. One year at camp, I shot a score of 45 out of 50 with a .22 on a well-regulated, 50-foot NRA-approved range. That was on Monday. I spent much of the rest of the week ill in the tent of my Scoutmaster (my dad). About Thursday, some of Scouts in our Troop came running up, "Someone beat your score! They shot a 46!" I got up out of my sick-bed sleeping bag and while still feverish, went up to the rifle range and shot a score of 48. I was very proud to maintain my high score that week.

My dad once told me something that stuck, "The only purpose of a handgun is to shoot someone." I have been skittish about them ever since. I've only shot one once (at a target) as a teenager in another Scout activity for older Scouts.

I once went to a funeral in suburban northern Virginia of someone who died from a gun. It was the teenage daughter of one our secretaries at work. It was one of those all too common sad stories where she was in the basement of a friend's house when the friend was showing off with his dad's gun. It went off. I have a lock on my target gun.

In fact, I've never figured out the logic of having a gun for self defense but keeping it locked up or with a trigger lock for safety at home. How exactly do you get that key when the bad guys sneak in at night to rob or kill you? If you have it in your nightstand or, heaven forbid, under your pillow loaded and ready to go, exactly how do you protect your grandchildren?

I know a lot of people believe they need guns for self-defense. Maybe so. I'll trust in other things and the essential goodness of the American people - even if it takes a few generations - and many, many more unnecessary and tragic deaths until we reach some real sanity.


ADDENDUM
July 23, 2012
So, today The Atlantic on-line publishes this article by Evan Selinger on guns as tools - even if a much more sophisticated and intellectual argument than mine - it's pretty much the same. Of course, I had to break my rules and post a comment or two. . . .

ADDENDUM
July 24, 2012
For what it's worth, Politifacts ratings on the NRA

12 comments:

  1. I am also very tired of this "Spoons made me fat" response. I like much better the "Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people who detonate the nuclear weapons do."

    While certainly a bit of hyperbole, the point is that no one (sane at least) is arguing that nuclear weaponry should be an individual right. Taking it a step down, no one is really arguing for even small bomb ownership (which is probably a realistic comparison anyway based on the number of individuals killed and injured.) No, no one is claiming individuals should own nuclear weapons or even small bombs for their protection, yet things like automatic and semi-automatic guns (not to mention large barrels of ammunition) are somehow justifiable for individual ownership?

    It's obvious that as a society we set a standard for what is and is not justifiable for individual ownership - so how is it so appalling that I find automatic and semi-automatic weapons to be on the same side as bombs and nuclear weapons (no need for a private citizen to own)? Are we really endangering the Second Amendment by drawing the line a little closer, even if it includes some dangerous weapons that happen to be guns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Anonymous. If people really believed in original intent and how things should be just like the Founders intended, everybody should be well-regulated in the use of a musket. I guess a blunderbuss or arquebus would be OK, too. Assault weapons - way beyond "original intent."

      Delete
  2. Well regulated... Don't see a lot of that about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that there is no amount of regulation or deregulation that could have prevented the theater tragedy. Making guns less available may not have prevented this young man from arming himself, and making open/concealed carry would not have allowed citizens to take action because they were blinded by tear gas.

    I agree that we, as a culture, put too much emphasis on guns as problem-solving tools. That's something I've never heard before, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm sure I'll be stealing it when I argue with my friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Daniel, for both comments. I'm working through this "tool" theory, but I think it arises from the awkward language of the 2nd Amendment itself. Once you rule out the well-regulated militia as they tend to do, you have to find another justification or purpose for the "right to bear arms" - self defense? or anti-government uprising? Of course, that's the same thing in some minds.

      Delete
    2. I have run into many people, including someone who commented in church a few weeks ago to this effect, who put "self-defense" and "anti-government uprising" into the same category. I don't really understand why some people are so quick to talk about revolt when things are actually going pretty well and far better than they would be if we were in a state of civil war. But maybe I'm just not enough of a patriot to understand.

      Delete
  4. One more thing:

    The real tragic irony of this incident is that the previous Batman movie, "The Dark Knight" focused on the Joker's efforts to show everyone that society is an illusion and that if that illusion is broken - when chaos ensues - we will all change into self-interested animals. However, when tested, the citizens of Gotham demonstrate that people are essentially good and that only a small minority don't believe that.

    The tragedy of the shooting is counterbalanced by the stories of bravery, the uniting of the community, and the great feelings of sympathy and compassion that we all have for the victims.

    An added layer of tragic irony is that in his crusade against evil, Batman never uses a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I found this very interesting article about the effect that gun possession has on people's perceptions about reality:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-philosophy-of-the-technology-of-the-gun/260220/

    It's far more thoughtful and coherent than I could be on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love your first paragraph. May I copy it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely! Attribution or a link would be nice unless you are some sort of embarrassing-type of anonymous.

      Delete
  7. Your argument comparing guns to nuclear weapons and large scale explosives is ridiculous. A gun is a tool that can be used for sport, self-defense, and hunting. A nuclear bomb is designed as an instrument of death on a catastrophic scale. In all reality, how many people can one guy kill with a gun and all the ammo he can carry? The gun is primarily used for one-on-one situations. You scoff at your imagined belief that guns are rarely used for self-defense. I hear about dozens of cases a month where guns were used to foil home-invasions and robberies; many times without any life being taken. Why don't you do a little leg work and look at the gun laws in different areas compared to the amount of violent crime in those areas. The parts of the country with smaller violent crime numbers are, in most cases, those with less gun regulation. Why? Perhaps it is because stricter regulation on gun ownership will not keep people who don't obey the law from acquiring guns. There are a phenomenal number of ways to illegally acquire firearms - regardless of the laws or country you are in. All additional regulation does is disarm the people who need the guns for protection. I personally keep multiple firearms in my house and on my person locked and loaded. I do not leave them lying around (I have many locked in a safe), but I do keep one on my nightstand. I was raised in a house where guns were readily available. Proper training from my youth was responsible for me learning proper gun handling skills and safety rules. I was not even aloud to shoot a BB gun until I knew what every component on the gun was called and what its function was. I do agree, a person without any gun training should not purchase a firearm and leave it lying around for anyone to access - but that is not the norm anyways. Do you have any idea how many gun owners there are in the United States? Do you know that the majority of those gun owners own semi or fully automatic weapons? Do you see these millions of individuals running amok on the streets causing mass genocide? Let's get real. It is a right that was insured by our founding fathers and we would be best to maintain that right. Besides, if guns were somehow eliminated off the face of the planet - do you think people would just stop murdering and raping people? Guns are a tool, and they may be the tool of choice for disturbed individuals. However, if they didn't exist, those disturbed individuals would just use something else. What if baseball bats became the number one choice for violent crime by a factor of 40. Should we outlaw baseball in the country? Stop taking the easy route by trying to treat a symptom of the problems in society. Find the root cause and then develop a solution. The spoons made me fat analogy is perfectly sound. Just like pencils make me misspell words and nun-chucks make me beat people to death. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your spirited response, Anonymous-Gun-Proponent. Rather than answer all your challenges or rhetorical questions, I will let the readers make their own judgments of the relative merits of the arguments and logic or lack thereof.

      Delete

Comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree as many do. You can even be passionate (in moderation). Comments that contain offensive language, too many caps, conspiracy theories, gratuitous Mormon bashing, personal attacks on others who comment, or commercial solicitations- I send to spam. This is a troll-free zone. Charity always!