Reader Rick emails the following in response to this anti-gun column (long, grab your coffee):

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT, OUR CURRENT GUN CULTURE IS LEADING THE COUNTRY DOWN A PATH TO MAYHEM.

My gun has lead no one anywhere. It merely sits in the drawer until I use it. And I don’t see too many hunters in tree stands sitting over the streets of Oakland, bagging the trophy sized gangbanger who wanders by looking for a watering hole.
Perhaps it is a “people” culture who is causing the problems?

ACCORDING TO THE SMALL ARMS SURVEY 2007 BY THE GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, U.S. CITIZENS OWN 270 MILLION OF THE WORLD’S 875 MILLION KNOWN FIREARMS – THAT TRANSLATES TO ROUGHLY 90 GUNS FOR EVERY 100 AMERICANS. MOREOVER, THE SURVEY ESTIMATES THAT 4.5 MILLION OF THE 8 MILLION NEW GUNS MANUFACTURED WORLDWIDE EACH YEAR ARE PURCHASED IN THE UNITED STATES.

270 Million firearms in American hands. Remember that because it’s going to be important later on.

DOES IT MAKE ME A TREE-HUGGING, OVERBEARING, POLITICALLY CORRECT, SOCIALIST,
ANTI-AMERICAN LIBERAL BECAUSE I FIND THESE STATISTICS PROBLEMATIC? WE ARE
AWASH IN GUNS AND IT IS NOT MERELY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS THAT OWN THEM.

No. but it does make you someone who is ignorant of basic statistical study
and how to apply logic to problem solving. The question really is, do you
want to remain ignorant or do you want to learn a little bit over the next
few minutes?

THE TOP PRIORITY OF EVERY URBAN MAYOR IN THE COUNTRY IS PUBLIC SAFETY. HOW
CAN WE SAY WE WANT A REDUCTION IN CRIME, BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMONSTRATE
NEUTRALITY AT THE ALARMING NUMBER OF GUNS THAT ARE AVAILABLE?

How many guns? 270 million? And how many crimes are committed each year with
guns? You don’t know, do you. But you comment on it anyway, eh?

Let me wildly inflate the number of crimes committed with a gun to a million
each year. That is far and away an overly hyped number, but it is easy to
work with. And it shows that I am not going to try to play any games to make
things come out in my favor.

270 million guns. If ten percent of those guns were involved in a crime that
means we’d have 27 MILLION gun crimes each year. Wow.

But we don’t, do we. If ONE PERCENT were used in crimes, then that means we
have almost THREE MILLION gun crimes a year. Wow.

But we don’t, do we. We have far and away less than a million gun crimes a
year. That means that less than one third of one percent of American guns
are used in crimes.

One third of one percent. While each single crime is a shame against our
society, I wonder, just wonder, what percentage of pastors are involved in
some sort of major sinning against God each year to the point where they
lose their pastorate?

Now. since we know that 99.7 percent of the guns are in honest hands, just
how is reducing THOSE guns going to affect the crime rate? We both know that
reducing the guns in honest hands by 10 percent, 20 percent, or even 50
percent will not take a single gun away from a criminal.

So be specific. Give details. How is this going to help in the “reduction in
crime”?

LAST YEAR, THE EAST BAY EXPRESS RAN A STORY THAT TRACED GUNS SOLD AT TRADERS
SPORTING GOODS IN SAN LEANDRO AND FOUND THAT ONE IN EIGHT EVENTUALLY ENDED
UP INVOLVED IN A CRIME. ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,
AND FIREARMS, TRADERS WAS THE NATION’S SECOND-BIGGEST SOURCE OF CRIME GUNS.

You really don’t know much about guns and legal type of stuff, do you?

Are you aware that the police “trace” guns all the time without them being
involved in any crime? And the BATF data just shows the raw number of
traces? And that the gun control bigots are the ONLY ones who say that each
and every gun so traced means the gun was used in a crime.

A while back I was stopped for a minor traffic violation and in accordance
with the law notified the policeman that I was licensed to carry a gun and
had one with me. He was one of the few policemen who tend to get upset over
that, and even though my paperwork was completely in line, he took my
handgun back to his squad car and had a “trace” ran on it to prove it was
not involved in a prior crime. Obviously it wasn’t, so it was returned to me
and I went on my way.

Yet, Sarah Brady now claims that since MY gun was “traced” by the police
then it must be one of these evil “crime guns.” And you believe her because
you don’t know any better. You’ll parrot her facts without the slightest
investigation by yourself of the truth.

Do you treat the Gospel this way? You just take someone else’s “word” for
what it means? Or did you dig in and satisfy yourself of the basic truths
found in the Bible?

Perhaps you should go and download the FREE Gunfacts books at
www.gunfacts.info. You’ll find hundreds of thoroughly documented facts
concerning guns, crime, and their relationhip.

THERE REMAINS A CHASM BETWEEN THOSE THAT VIEW THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH
MORAL ABSOLUTENESS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT. THE INABILITY TO CROSS THIS
PHILOSOPHICAL DIVIDE LEAVES AMERICAN GUN POLICY IN THE AMORAL SPHERE OF THE
MARKETPLACE.

There remains a chasm between those that view the First Amendment with moral
absoluteness and those who do not. The inability to cross this philosophical
divide leaves American religious policy in the amoral sphere of the
marketplace.

SINCE OUR COUNTRY NO LONGER POSSESSES A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, I AM NOT
CERTAIN OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Don’t know much about history and the militia either, eh? Are you aware of
what Congress has had to say about the militia? Let’s take a look:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-barnett091801.shtml

Pay careful attention to the reference of Section 311 of US Code Title 10
which is the legal law of the land.

SELF-DEFENSE IS FREQUENTLY CITED AS THE REASON TO OWN A GUN, BUT STUDIES
SHOW THAT ONE IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO KILL A MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD OR
FRIEND THAN AN INTRUDER. IN OAKLAND, SELF-DEFENSE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR TWO
DEATHS IN 2007.

Must EVERY incident of self defense end in “death” for it to count. The
women who shows her gun to the thug holding a knife and motioning her
towards the alley really hasn’t “defended” herself when he backs off and
runs?

That, my friend, is a really warped view of “self defense.”

And the Kellerman study that you attempt to cite has been discredited so
many times by so many people that even he doesn’t stand by it anymore.

Here’s a couple that eviscerate him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

This one is much more complex and scholarly.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html

WHENEVER I AM CRITICAL OF GUNS, GUN OWNERS FLOOD MY E-MAIL WITH QUOTES FROM
WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON, MADISON, WEBSTER, AND ADAMS (JOHN AND SAM) JUSTIFYING
THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE.

It’s a pretty good start for it. And until you can overcome the Founding
Father’s ideas and views about gunownership in the general population why
should we view anything you might say as having any value?

FOR ALL OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS’ RIGHTS, SHOULD ONE
SURMISE THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE TO KEEP GUNS AWAY FROM THOSE WHO ARE
COMMITTING CRIMES? IS THIS MERELY A FLAW IN OUR CONSTITUTION?

For all of the discussion about law-abiding citizens’ rights, should one
surmise that nothing can be done to keep cars away from those who are
robbing banks? Is this merely a flaw in our Constitution?

For all of the discussion about law-abiding citizens’ rights, should one
surmise that nothing can be done to keep printing presses away from those
who are committing libel? Is this merely a flaw in our Constitution?

For all of the discussion about law-abiding citizens’ rights, should one
surmise that nothing can be done to keep Bibles away from those who are
committing fraudulent fundraising? Is this merely a flaw in our
Constitution?

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM AN ASSAULT WEAPONS OWNER. EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED
THIS WEAPON. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE? SHORT OF PREPARING VENISON PATE, WHY WOULD
A SPORTSMAN NEED SUCH A GUN?

I’m glad that you give an opportunity to clear up a canard that gun control
enthusiasts continue to write about.

Are you honest about learning? Do you believe that the truth will set you
free, or are you the type of person who ignores truth when it doesn’t fit
your agenda?

“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and
other anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are
demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out
just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.

Actually, many of the national leaders in the gun banning community know
they are lying to the public. Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book
“Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” laid out the strategy for all
to see.

“Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic
firearms-are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the
public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic
assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a
machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions
on these weapons.”

True automatic assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first
developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians
immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s eventual version,
the M16/M4, wasn’t too bad either but certainly wasn’t universally loved by
soldiers.

They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so
the weapons tended to be:

–lightweight
–of a smaller caliber
–easy to maintain
–rugged
–Shot from the hip if necessary
–fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
–Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full
automatic.

Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed
it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes
against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal, or even
completely collapsible. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who
never thought about the “why” of it.

Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.

The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing,
which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little
.22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range,
and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause
many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To
minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to
carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything
to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a
short time.

Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where
the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight
protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is
coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.

Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway
so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can
never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all
back at the barracks.

This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223
round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The
significance of this?

Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take
more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s
powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.

The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than
a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three
one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you
have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three
miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a
difference overall?

The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of
rice.

So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put
into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much
faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but
the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure
mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223
and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers
because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a
dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on
average four other soldiers to take care of him.

Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol (pointing
downwards so you wouldn’t shoot your teammate in the head) it was good to
have a way to immediately bring it into play. thus the stock and grip were
designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with
it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their
head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies
heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.

The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a
distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If
you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.

The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire.
The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one
shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the
rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty,
thirty, and even a hundred.

The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto
by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything.
Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The
barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a
super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.

Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an
automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an
express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a
months pay for these guys.

There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then
one was glad they had it.

Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just
not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

Aside from that the disadvantages of machine guns are considerable. Not
least among them is the weight and space of the ammunition they consume.
This is something that isn’t obvious to the casual viewer of action films,
since most on-screen firearms feature tardis-like ammunition capacities,
capable of firing indefinitely with no magazine changes.

In fact, an M16 has a firing rate of 750 rounds per minute, so that if one
were to be used as typically shown in movies (constant spray of bullets),
one would go through a 30-round magazine every two and a half seconds. And a
full magazine weighs a pound. So for a single minute’s use in full auto, a
movie-watching criminal would need to carry at least 25 pounds of magazines
around (and that’s about $500 worth of ammunition, which will seriously dent
their bank heist operational budget).

Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being
sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say
“assault weapons.”

The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons
all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the
market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been
made for almost 140 years.

Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been
illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal
government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before
1986.

The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and
expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal
transfer tax on each full auto weapon. There is no record of any licensed
fully automatic weapon being used in the commission of a crime since 1934.

“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at
Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying
fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat
unicorns.

Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are
either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the
discussion.

What the anti-gunners mean when they say “assault weapons” are guns that are
made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of
variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them
would be found on a battlefield.

The real soldiers would laugh at them.

One can take a little .22 rifle, a harmless little plinking rifle that
wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo, and for a couple of hundred
dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the
barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable
(from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the
same little ol’ .22.

What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe
that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can
take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.

Many people complain that the semi-autos sold today are easily converted to
full automatic weapons. They have no understanding of either the mechanics
of firearms or the laws prohibiting even the whiff of an full auto.

Federal law declares that any gun that is easily converted to an automatic
weapon IS an automatic weapon for the purposes of the law, even if not
actually converted — (National Firearms Act as amended by the
McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986). That NON-automatic pistols or carbines that
fire from an open bolt are Title 2/Class III restricted under Federal law,
because they can be converted by filing the sear.

It is a crime to even ATTEMPT to convert a legal semi-auto to fully
automatic fire even in the absence of a conversion kit. The attempt is the
same thing as possessing an illegal, unregistered machine gun. If you
possess even a single PART from a full auto gun and attempt to fit it to a
semi-auto, you’ve just tried to assemble an illegal machine gun. That is a
10 year prison sentence and/or a $250,000 dollar fine.

The semi-auto versions of any military-type rifle have to be specifically
designed so that CANNOT accept parts from their full auto cousins without
requiring major alteration to the gun itself. As a result, the presence of
the alteration is prima facie evidence that you were, in fact, intending to
manufacture an illegal machine gun.

This is difficult to explain to someone who isn’t familiar with the
internals of firearms. I can tell you it is not easy to convert any
semi-auto rifle to full-auto. It requires a machine shop in many cases and a
machinist used to working to very precise specs. And manufacture of a
conversion kit would be considered manufacture of a machine gun under the
law. Hence why you don’t see the kits.

Books do exist on how to build machine guns or make the necessary
conversions. That’s legal. It’s protected under the 1st Amendment. You can
even buy the book and own the corresponding gun. Questionable judgement but
still legal. You become a criminal the moment you attempt to go from the
abstract words on a page and turn them into steel reality. Then you’re
breaking the law. Not until.

Many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do,
but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s
certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires.

And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the
right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are
the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, small feral hogs,
and other destructive pests, and it’s even popular for some small types of
deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only
fifty yards or so. Since almost all states limit the number of rounds that
can be carried in a longgun while hunting to only five the issue of someone
shooting a deer thirty times is simply not even reasonable.

Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are
much bigger and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No,
that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don’t
use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn’t mean that both hammers and
screwdrivers have their proper uses.

These types of rifles are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because
many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and
backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. They shoot a
common and inexpensive cartridge. They’re customizable, with only a few
moving parts, easy to find spare parts for, and don’t have a lot of recoil.

You can drop it in a swamp, pull it out and it will still shoot. Not a lot
of expensive hunting rifles could take the abuse a typical sports uitility
rifle could shrug off.

Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are
converting to these guns for these same reasons.

A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his
tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops
faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something
that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is
lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough
to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the
M-4, is perfect for his use.

These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can
shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it
is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A.
there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple
round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty
impressive reason for wanting any weapon.

The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models
because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s
a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can
maintain the most accurate rifle. At Camp Perry, where the National Shooting
championships have been held each year for decades, the AR-15 has dominated
the short to medium length accuracy competition for many years.

Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s
and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some
women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days.
Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with
that. A lot of them consider the military as “heroes” and want to emulate
them.

Are these guns being used to specifically target police officers for death?
No, of course not. David Kopel examined the evidence stretching over years
and years and found that they are far from any major cause of harm to our
police officers:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/Are_Assault_Weapons_a_Threat_to_Police.htm

Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the
farthest thing from one. they fire just one bullet at a time the way every
other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between
them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a
smaller type bullet.

An excellent ten minute video about this subject can be found here:

You’ll get to see a normal, everyday hunting rifle change to an “evil black
rifle” right before your very eyes. And when you realize that it is
fundamentally no different from you going from suit and tie with combed hair
to bluejeans and a tee shirt with unkempt hair then you’ll understand the
lies the gun banners have been trying to foist off on the public.

Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is
ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their
opinion about something they know nothing about.

THE PROBLEM LIES IN OUR PERMISSIVE GUN CULTURE THAT, IN PART THROUGH
EFFECTIVE LOBBYING BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, HAS NOT ONLY REPEALED
CERTAIN LAWS, BUT ALSO EXTENDED OTHERS, SUCH AS CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
IN CERTAIN STATES, MAKING IT EASIER FOR GUNS TO FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS.

You have a cite on this “fact” about guns now falling easier into the wrong
hands because of CCW? No, I didn’t think so.

You just made that up, didn’t you. Off the top of your head. NO EVIDENCE
whatsoever to back that up.

If my gun is “concealed” on my body, just how is it going to fall into the
wrong hands. Be specific. Give details. Give proof that it happens as a
matter of everyday circumstance amoung CCW holders.

Don’t give what you “think” might happen. Give me a FACT.

PERHAPS THERE ARE THOSE WHO DO INDEED WANT TO TAKE AWAY EVERYONE’S GUNS, BUT
I SUSPECT THEY REPRESENT A SMALL MINORITY.

Would YOU be happier if you thought that everyone’s guns would be taken
away – from everyone? Be honest. Yes or no. If it is yes, then that is
indeed what you want.

You don’t have to sugarcoat it.

PERSONALLY, I DON’T MAKE THE LEAP FROM CURBING THE AVAILABILITY OF ASSAULT
WEAPONS, STRICTER INVESTIGATION OF WHO BUYS GUNS ALONG WITH BETTER TRACKING
OF THOSE WEAPONS TO GETTING REMINGTON RIFLES, BROWNING SHOTGUNS, AND HORTON
CROSSBOWS OFF THE STREETS.

Remington rifles and Browning shotguns are basic hunting long guns. You want
to see them removed from society?

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS LED THE CHARGE SO THAT THE 90
GUNS FOR EVERY 100 PEOPLE WERE IN THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

Well, we’re failing your desires then because we’re working on the 99.7
percent level – not your puny 90 percent level.

I KNOW THAT’S SOMEWHAT UTOPIAN, BUT IT IS THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IF THEY
ARE TRULY COMMITTED TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Those of us who legally own and carry weapons are quite concerned about
those who misuse guns… We who have made the choice to own or carry
firearms on a daily basis know better than most anyone just what destructive
power they have in the wrong hands, and it pains us greatly to see one
misused to hurt innocent people. After all, it’s our wives, and children,
and siblings, and parents, and friends that are also walking these same
streets and riding the same school buses.

You might be surprised to hear how we can jump on the bones of someone who
admits to carelessness and thoughtlessness in the care and handling of
firearms (or in letting a child have access to one).

I’ve seen dozens of replies many times to a beginner’s question of “how can
I secure my gun to keep others from it.” What makes this tendency to help
new owners so fascinating is the sheer ingenuity of workable solutions —
all from people who actually know what they are talking about. It’s kind of
like having a mechanic help you discern what’s wrong with your car instead
of the local butcher (not that there’s anything wrong with butchers, but car
repairs aren’t always their area of expertise).

We both know that 99.7 percent of the gun owners in America will never use
their gun in a way to bring dishonor to either them, their family, or the
gun. Instead of using the dishonorable one percent to guide your decisions
and influence your ideas why not use the collective wisdom of the other 99%?

Do you let the reprobates and backsliders in the church dictate your view of
how the church is supposed to work?

We have over 300,000 people here in Indiana who are licensed to carry
concealed handguns. The law has been on the books for almost seventy years.
There’s no blood on the streets, no Dodge City, no lawmen being shot down
daily, no anything… just law-abiding citizens going about their lives
secure in the knowledge that we have taken the responsibility to be the
primary line of self-defense for our families. I, and all the others, carry
concealed handguns into all those places you listed and Indiana still stands
tall and proud… and Hoosiers willingly and gladly walk side-by-side with
us knowing they have nothing to fear from us..

We still retain every option that you have when trouble happens including
calling 911, running, screaming, falling-down-and-begging-for-mercy… but
we have the one additional option. When our backs are against the wall and
there is no escape, we can apply measured force to prevent grave bodily harm
to ourselves and our loved ones.

I hope to God that I or my wife never have to do so.

Please know that I lost my grandfather due to a careless use of a handgun by
my uncle, his son. That was fifty years ago and at a family funeral last
year for one of the uncles involved there was still deep bitterness over the
loss of a father. My sister’s estranged husband blew his brains out with a
gun while trying to talk her into coming back to him during a phone
conversation. Sue had to listen to him threaten to do so, and then hear the
cock of the gun and the discharge, knowing that she could do nothing to stop
him. I myself have had several guns pointed at me while working retail in a
bad section of the country.

My other grandfather also committed suicide with a gun long before I was
born.

Yet, I know that my grandfather would have been just as dead as if my uncles
ran over him with their car, and my brother-in-law would have been just as
dead as if he sliced his wrists on the phone. My paternal grandfather would
have been just as dead if he choose to hang himself from the barn rafters.
And I would certainly have surrendered the money just as fast if the robbers
had baseball bats.

In each case the gun had no mind of its own, but was a tool that was
negligently used and misused. For me to blame the firearm in any of these
circumstances would be to fantasize that an inanimate object had somehow a
mind of its own.

We go to a church that has recently been in a high growth mode. In Sunday
School this past week our teacher mentioned that one can always tell “after
the fact” when a church has become “proud” and has lost the sense that God
is the one that blesses… but it’s very difficult to know when the moment
is that the church puts its foot on that path. He asked for prayer that we
not put our foot on that path that leads to the downfall of many churches.

Afterwards several of us were talking with him on the clarification of a
finer point of theology over which there was some disagreement He
referenced another church in the area and disparaged their understanding of
the issue, and bluntly said they didn’t know of what they were speaking.

I immediately jumped in and reminded him of his statement about initially
setting the foot on the path that leads to pride, and told him he just
stepped squarely on that first step. The folk at the other church were
honorable, and while they had an understanding that may be different from
his it was not our place to be shallowly dismissive of their hundreds of
years of study and practice as they best saw God’s will. His quick judgement
and assumption that God spoke only to us on this matter was purely his pride
speaking.

He was immediately repentant of what he said, and truly saw his mistake.

I ask the same of you. I have trained dozens of people in the safe use of
guns. My friends have trained hundreds, if not thousands. I have safely
stored several firearms for twenty years. My friends have stored dozens of
firearms, many for thirty and forty years. I have carried a firearm for
several years, my friends have carried for many, many years.

To assume that we care nothing about the subject of the safe use of
firearms, and to dismiss our desires, experience and wisdom as having no
value is breathtaking in its arrogance.

If you truly want to learn how to fish, you don’t hang out with the PETA
folk. If you want to learn how to grow wheat and corn you don’t move to
Japan. And if you want to truly know how to best create a safe environment
for children to grow up, then you listen to those of us who have been living
that life for years.

You’ve got good resources there in California to study from… I deeply
encourage you not to allow the mistake of pride dominate your thinking and
to open yourself up to the idea that those of us who actually walk the walk
also know how to talk the talk.

Posted in uncategorized on September 4th, 2007 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |