Firearm Debate

In the wake of recent school killings, there’s real outrage from the student survivors because they experienced fear, felt loss, and remain feeling vulnerable in their learning institution. Something few politicians have faced. The student outrage is directed at government because when it comes to firearms government prefers the status quo and are therefore seen to be sitting on their hands. In the war of words, as in any political debate, words are used to score points that supporters will cheer at, but nobody’s prepared to step into the others’ shoes to reach any sort of balance, it’s hard-line, no movement. Adversarial debating has no place with issues relating to humanity, it isn’t appropriate.

The most immediate action to be taken it seems, is to train and arm school teachers. I wonder, have the teachers been consulted? There are inherent risks with the idea. I miss as many rabbits as I bag and I shoot at them on a daily basis! Admittedly, they are a smaller target than humans but in a confused situation, if the bullet doesn’t hit the target, where does it go? Collateral damage. My .22 rimfire can potentially kill at 1.4km, and my bullets are small compared with those used in most US weapons. If the bullet doesn’t hit bone, where does it go? More collateral damage. Schools are populated places, where learning should be fun - not war zones!

In a recent case, an off-duty policeman shot his wife and wounded her lover, not because of mental instability, he was bloody angry and exacted revenge. Psychology is an indefinite branch of medicine and therefore mental checks can have a diminished value. All a psychologist can do really do is ask questions, and if the replies tick the boxes because the client is barefaced lying, what can he/she do? We all might be able to make our own judgement about someone’s sanity by looking at them, but if a psychologist did that professionally, they would end up in court. Blaming mental instability for mass shootings points the finger of suspicion on anyone with mental issues – you can’t do that! It would be far better to interview associates of license applicants privately. If someone wants a firearm the person should give the names of say, ten referees, and an inspector randomly interviews maybe half of them. The cost is met by the applicant. In this country spouses are interviewed before a firearm licence is granted.

I’ve been trying to get my head around the whole situation, and all is not clear to me. It seems, one of the big reasons of not altering the second amendment is the need for a militia. This stems from experience during the Revolution. There have been other wars on American soil, so why hark back to the Revolution? These days there are a number of law enforcement agencies, how does a militia fit in with them? If the need is genuine, and I don’t have a clue, why do the firearms need to be in the hands of individuals, private people? Why is there not an armoury in every county office, or whatever place deemed a safe place? There could then be training days and live firings - if that’s what’s needed.

From what I have read, and what people tell me, America is a far more dangerous place that I would have believed! It’s no secret that I’m personally anti-firearm, but I’d like to understand the other side. Banning firearms is not going to happen and the way things are nor should it – it would be illogical. I’ve never so much as handled an assault rifle, but I can’t imagine one being immediately useful at home when baddies pay a visit. My trusty .22 rifle is by law, locked away and not quickly accessible. There must be similar laws in the US? I imagine there are pistols tucked away at the ready? Is that legal? Even so at home or in a vehicle, if you needed to protect yourself, wouldn’t an assault rife be unwieldy?  So why are they necessary? Frankly if I was afraid sitting at home, as many Americans apparently are, I’d be sitting on my couch with a shotgun across my knees! You don’t have to be so accurate with a shotgun!

With regard to mass shootings, there appears to be something under the surface, something you see in so many western movies. ‘I’ll go down, and I’ll take as many as I can with me!’ The likes of William Cody, Jessie James and the others, enjoyed the power of standing behind their weapons, and they enjoyed their notoriety! There’s a similar undercurrent taking place in modern times. A combination of suicide by cop or to take out as many as possible on their way down. Consigning their deed to the history books. A competition.

I attended the a Hunter Training School as part of my job, there, they laid down the basic firearm rules, the same rules are used by the police today when testing candidates wanting firearms licenses. These are the headings, they are expanded in the handout literature:

. Treat every firearm as if it was loaded.

. Point the firearm in a safe direction – never at people.

. Load the firearm only when ready to fire.

. Identify the target. Not by colour or movement.

. Check the firing zone – what’s behind the target?

. Store safely – ammunition in a different place to the firearm.

. Avoid alcohol or drugs.

The other rule, not adopted by the police was to never trust a safety catch! Ever!

The second amendment gives the right to own and bear arms. Is that it? Or are there rules laid down about firearm safety, and more to the point, are they observed?  This is not a criticism, but I’m interested to know.