-
A Reply to Julianne Escobedo Shepherd
and her article “NYC Mayor Bloomberg Becomes First—Only?—Politician to Advocate Tougher Gun Control, Post-Colorado Massacre”
Written by Osiris Brand
In your article you quote Elliot Spitzer wondering at the reason Gun Control has become the “third rail” of politics. The simple answer is that like so much in modern American Society, we lie to ourselves about why it is such a charged topic.
Julianne Escobedo Shepard, in your article you make adjustments to statements like the following:
Point 1:
Quote: Politicians are saying all kinds of ridiculous things; Virginia’s Senate candidates both eschewed advocating tougher gun control, with Republican George Allen saying the “solution is not to take the rights of law-abiding citizens (without explaining why a law-abiding citizen might require an machine gun).
Now I cannot stand the majority of nonsense being said by both sides on this important (perhaps most important of) topics. But since you are requesting an explanation why a law-abiding citizens might require a machine gun…
I am going to make an assumption. The assumption that I will work with in this letter is that among most non-gun owners that a machine gun is just as much a weapon-of-war as a cannon. A cannon loaded with shrapnel canister or grapeshot (known and used during the Revolutionary war) can easily slaughter multiple men and women indiscriminately. Using cannonballs, it can shatter walls and kill people who thought they were safe on the other side. So maybe I’m not wrong assuming that you would equate such a powerful military weapon as being refused to American citizens.
Such an assumption would be incorrect. You see our founders had just fought a war against an advanced military power in the form of Britain. They had faced enemy soldiers and insurgents (called British loyalists at the time) attacking internally and externally. And they knew one of the major reasons they had the possibility of success was privately owned weaponry. It was the landowners who had cannons who devoted their weapons to the cause, this most eternal cause of overthrowing tyrany, that allowed the farmer-generals of the revolution to fight back effectively.
And our founders knew they would need every man’s personal rifle and every wealthier man’s cannon to win this fight and keep their newly minted country. They also knew their people would need these weapons of war, if a tyrant ever raised himself or herself as king over this newly-freed country.
In an age of combat drones, airplane mounted aerial lasers and spy satellite grids, where death from above can come down at any moment on any citizen at any time, this origin of our right to bear arms seems quaint and childish. How could a person with a single rifle, even an actual assault rifle with full automatic fire (which was NOT what was used in this crime, but I will explain that later) even hope to stand up to a future King who might claim America as his or her own?
We as law-abiding citizens don’t just have the right to legally purchase military weapons, we have the responsibility. This responsibility is a trust for our children and the children of all Americans. It is a responsibility that guarantees that future generations will never toil under Tyranny. The very responsibility the founding fathers passed down to us along with the constitution that bears the second amendment to guarantee us this right.
But along with the responsibility to own military weapons we the citizens have the responsibility to NOT use those weapons to commit crimes. The responsibility to store such gear safely and away from the misguided youth or foolish criminals who would misuse them. But this is an individual responsibility, and all gun-owners should not and cannot be held responsible when a single individual commits a crime.
Point 2-
Quote: including an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle
There are people who love to learn about classic cars, and some who love to learn about airplanes, and of course some who love to learn the difference between different types of firearms. Among firearms historians (both pro and amateur) calling a semi-automatic weapon an assault rifle is like calling grandma’s station wagon a Race car.
A Semi-automatic weapon is a weapon that fires one shot for each time you pull a trigger. Most weapons developed after 1911 are semi-automatic. Yes 1911, over 100 years ago. SO for the last century we have been building standard hunting rifles, personal protection pistols, and yes some military rifles as semi-automatic. 1 trigger pull= 1 bullet.
Then back during World War 2 (in the 1940S), the nations of the world decided it would be a great idea to develop an Assault Rifle. It would be this futuristic weapon that would allow a single soldier to take out a squad of other soldiers because each trigger pull would send multiple bullets. So suddenly 1 trigger pull = Lots of Bullets.
Some Assault Rifles were Burst Fire (3 rounds for 1 trigger pull) and some were fully automatic called Full Auto. These Full Auto Assault Rifles could act as portable Machine Guns. Now see that important distinction. It was only the Full-Auto Assault Rifles that are machine guns (despite the way our current society seems to throw around the term machine gun).
Therefore the Criminal involved in the Aurora Shooting was NOT using a machine gun.
He was using a semi-automatic rifle, a non-military civilian rifle. Now we can lie and say its a machine gun and can fill the air with lead BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. Every time this criminal shot someone with this semi-automatic rifle he had to make a choice to pull the trigger. He had to use his god-given Free Will, and choose to pull that trigger. And every wounded innocent that resulted from that trigger pull was his choice. That choice is what makes this criminal a murderer and of course a criminal (a person who breaks laws, remember we do have those laws to punish murderers regardless of what method of killing is used).
Point 3:
Quote: Indubitably, the tragedy would have been minimized if James Holmes had not had legal access to a military-grade assault weapon.
I believe I have already effectively explained why the firearm used in this heinous criminal act was not an assault weapon. Now let me address the myth of Guns are the cause of this terrible tragedy.
When taking into account the THREE Barrels of Home-made Napalm that this criminal had created, found by Police when they raided the criminal’s home, this crime indubitably could have been far worse.
If this criminal had used home-made napalm on these theater-goers the death-toll would have been far worse, the fires would have spread indiscriminately killing those nearby as well. For those who don’t know much about Napalm, water would have just helped to spread the napalm, so normal fire suppression techniques would have spread napalm fires across the theater and across the patrons. The wounded would have been suffering from extensive third-degree burns which can be much harder to work on by Physicians than bullet wounds.
In a way we as a society are lucky we have semi-automatic guns when mad-men like this criminal decide to go on their killing rampages. Guns need to be pointed, they need to be aimed. You have to take a conscious choice if you decide to use these firearms to harm innocents. They are not arbitrary like bombs and incendiary devices.
I am not saying gun crimes are good, because I was a victim of a gun crime at a very young age, and I understand the danger and threat that a firearm can create in the hands of a malicious human being. I understand the years of trauma these survivors face ahead of them.
What I am saying is that mankind has evolved the ability to kill over millennia. When a criminal like James Holmes decides he is going to kill, he will find a way to do so. We should punish the criminal, and criminalize his action, but we should not and cannot also hamstring our ability as a society of free citizens to protect our future.
People like this criminal will find ways to take life, and we must always remember to criminalize the Person who commits the crime, not the method. We don’t outlaw the car when a mad-man uses his car to kill by driving the car over a crowd of people. We understand the car didn’t have a conscious choice in the matter.
