My Errant Mind

There are many reasons some people feel that we Americans need additional gun control laws; however, most are based on irrational logic bordering on neurosis and—occasionally—manifesting as psychosis. Fear, contempt, lack of understanding, anger over the loss of lives—all these contribute to why these advocates of additional and stricter gun control seek their desired end. Are these the root sources of an illogical philosophy that would see people disarmed? Or, are those espousing anti-gun views showing signs of mental illness?

Fear Leads To Hate

Fear often drives the machine that is the general populace. The ease with which a life may be taken by someone with a gun creates great anxiety and corresponding fears: fears of the apparent devaluation of life, and fears borne of a sense of helplessness in protecting oneself and loved ones. Society as a whole hears of shootings regularly, even daily, and fearing for their safety, many people attempt to blame an inanimate object rather than address the root problems at fault.

For some people, blame turns easily to hate. They gradually begin to hate guns, often starting with a vague fealing of anxiety or discomfort when around them, or when the word gun is mentioned. This misplaced fear can even have physical manifestations. I have seen people visibly tremble in the presence of firearms. I have seen others break down in tears and plead for a gun to be taken away. There are people living in many urban areas who live more reclusively than they otherwise would because they fear being shot; listening to gunfire in one’s neighborhood daily, guns become associated with danger, death, and a crippling of one’s ability to live life to the fullest.

Contempt For Life And Heroes

Similar to fear is contempt. The psyche of the Western mind that values heroics and makes much ado about chivalrous conduct has not come fully to grips with firearms in warfare, despite the fact that firearms have been in use for more than six centuries. The noblest and bravest warrior may be shot dead from more than half a mile away, never even aware of the enemy’s presence. When firearms were in their infancy and not very accurate, the advantage outweighed any perceived slight to warrior’s codes and ethics. This is no longer the case.

Similarly, another form of this contempt manifests itself in the notion that nearly anyone may now be a formidable opponent through the use of guns. No longer is the unique mind required that could chop a man’s face in with an axe or sword: any miscreant with a finger now holds life and death powers in his hands with no great difficulty. Thus, the things such as honor, reverance, respect, and admiration that societies normally afford to those who protect them are diminished. Is it any wonder this would have a detrimental effect on those who often feel as if they are sacrificing their very humanity to wage war on behalf of their families, friends, and countrymen?

Army Sergeant First Class, Matt Larsen—who makes his living training soldiers to fight in close combat—makes an interesting observation which demonstrates this very point. The article of reference can be found here: http://www.realfighting.com/0102/matlar.htm

“There are a couple of basic tenants that we teach all of our students. The first one is that the winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun. If you drop an enemy dead at your feet with the Vulcan death touch, and his buddy comes in with a gun, you still lose. The second is that the defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy…”

— SFC Matt Larsen, US Army

[note: The above quote is used with the permission of www.Realfighting.com. Thanks for allowing the use of it, and for a great website!]

People Often Despise What Is Not Understood

Lack of understanding also adds to the despisement of guns and the right of law-abiding citizens to bear them. The majority of people fail to realize that from distances of twenty-one feet or less, the trained knife-fighter is often deadlier than someone with a gun. Law enforcement studies have conclusively demonstrated that a knife-wielding assailant can cross that distance and stab or cut the majority of law enforcement officers before they can clear their holster with their service pistol and fire an aimed shot.

Not only have I seen the training videos, which feature world famous martial artist Dan Inosanto, but the group I was with duplicated those situations with the same results as part of our counter-terrorism training. Further, there are other examples, including the assassination of a political dignitary and the wounding of several people next to him by a blade-wielding assailant in a matter of moments. However, what most people see is some hoodlum on television blasting away with his pistol (usually turned sideways to look cool), and what they hear are the number of deaths by shooting on the nightly news.

They no longer care about realities.

It is interesting to note that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s crime statistics have shown that most untrained marksmen (i.e., criminals) cannot hit their target at more than twenty-five feet. On top of that, every twelve feet in addition to that increases the chance of survival by 15-20%. Simply running away is often enough to survive an encounter with gun-wielding attackers.

Misplaced Personal And Societal Anger — Tools Are Evil

Anger is another reason people want more gun regulation. The loss of friends, family, or co-workers creates an intense but misdirected anger. Logic is thrown out the window and people become willing to give up the rights that millions cherish and that countless citizens have given their lives defending. They direct their anger at guns because it is simpler: guns can’t argue in their own defense. Far more difficult is to challenge prosecutors and judges who give lenient sentences, and lazy law enforcement agencies who won’t enforce the thousands of gun control statutes already in existence.

Proponents of additional gun control measures often are merely projecting their emotions and falling prey to the old guilt by association argument, i.e., (1) there’s a lot of violence and (2) guns are often used in acts of violence, therefore (3) guns are the cause of violence. They forget that tools are inanimate objects.

If people decided to start killing each other with tire irons en masse (perhaps some silly movie makes it all the latest gangsta’ rage), would there be an outcry for tire iron regulation? Would you say tire irons were the cause of the violence? What if it were screwdrivers? No sane, logical line of reasoning could possibly lead to the conclusion that the tools caused the violence. The difference between tire irons and guns is this: both are tools, but they were designed to do different things. This does not mean the tools are inherently good or bad.

What matters, of course, is who uses those tools and how they use them. I could load ten guns and mount them on stands so that they all point at me while I sat here typing away, and I wouldn’t need to worry about being injured. Not ever! Except perhaps in the freakish event that a meteorite crashes through the ceiling and strikes one, the impact causing the firing pin to impact a primer. But believe me, I am not even remotely concerned about such astronomical odds. The simple fact is that the guns aren’t going to do anything without someone to pull the trigger. And therein lies the one thing that anti-gun and pro-gun control advocates cannot stomach and apparently is the source of their various mental illnesses.

It is called responsibility.

Anti-gunners Hate And Fear Responsibility

People pull triggers. People kill people. Guns do not, cannot, and have not ever killed anyone. They can do nothing of their own volition!

Refusal to acknowledge this or to accept the idea that people are responsible for their actions has caused anti-gunners both neurosis and psychosis at times. Worse, it keeps them from ever dealing with society’s real problems. They don’t want to address issues like personal and social responsibility, family, child rearing, morals, ideals, economics, and so forth. They have let their irrational fears, anger and misunderstandings cause them to retreat from reality.

Instead of tackling problems, they attempt to regulate the symptoms of the problems. Apparently, the line of thinking is that if no one can have guns, no one will feel anger towards their fellow humans. No one will be so morally decrepit or lazy that they would rather kill and take money than work for a living. And, our government—and nations that are its enemies—will suddenly be more compassionate and concerned with preserving all our other rights.

That generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve. With guns. How ironic is that line of thinking? Those that miss it are indeed shallow thinkers.

Folks, the most basic principle of problem solving is to isolate a supposed cause and remove it from the equation. If the problem persists, then what you thought was the problem is not the problem. Taking all the guns away will not change what is wrong in someone’s heart or in their mind. Removing a tool does not remove what is in a person’s soul or will to do.

If you can’t understand that, or simply choose to ignore it, there are only three possible reasons why:

• You lack the capacity for comprehension / understanding
• You have ulterior motives for choosing not to understand it
• You have mental illnesses or a state of mind which precludes it

While there are certainly reasons not to allow just anyone to carry guns anywhere they choose, there are likewise reasons not to take all rights to bear arms from everyone—or to give them only to the government. We shold not have to depend on others for our safety, nor on the compliance of criminals with the law of the land for our peace of mind. Such logic is not fuzzy, it is insanity.

[This is from an essay I wrote in 2004. That essay was in turn based partly off research I conducted back in 1994. Some interesting results of the survey I conducted at the time were these:

• More than 90% of people who espoused more gun control legislation were not aware of and could not name or describe even three laws or statutes pertaining to the regulation of firearms. Yet, they felt existing legislation was insufficient.
• More than 70% of people who responded to one survey question that asked if they felt an aversion or fear of guns had never owned a gun, never shot a gun. Roughly half of that same group grew up in a home where there was no gun ownership.
• 100% of resondents said they would fear an assailant with a gun more than one armed with a knife.
• One third of those who said they would consider themselve anti-gun in their views said they or someone in their family had a bad experience with guns.
• Roughly 20% of respondents know someone---either family or friend---who's work or livelihood involves firearms, i.e., security, law enforcement, military, ranchers, farmers, etc.

I'm rounding percentages to the nearest 10%, but in pretty much all cases, this is no more than 1-2% adjustment---in some cases the rounding is down, not up. Just thought you might enjoy knowing.]