I’m trying to understand why guns are so ingrained in American culture, why gun possession is one of our defining characteristics. Is it residual from our frontier-taming history? Does it reflect our passion for individual liberty? Is gun-collecting a hobby or investment? Or is it darker drives bordering on paranoia or the need for macho expression? Carry a big stick. Don’t tread on me!
Why do citizens need military-style assault rifles? It can’t be for target shooting because rapid-fire guns with high-capacity magazines are not at all necessary to test one’s accuracy. Nor can it be for hunting because those types of guns only indicate that the hunter is not very skilled.
I was once a gun collector. I owned several pistols, a couple of shotguns, three assault rifles, and a World War 2-era German machine gun (deactivated so it could not fire). As an engineer, army veteran, and student of military history, there was a sort of beauty, an artistry of mechanical design function that I admired. I rationalized that I had acceptable reasons for owning weapons of war. I am still a gun owner today. I own one pistol. Do I need it? Not really. Do I want it? Yes, for the same reason I gave above.
Now, most of us agree that we have a gun violence problem in America. Gun murders in the streets of our large cities have become so common that they are hardly newsworthy. Business as usual. When our kids are mass-murdered our hackles raised a little more – but only for a short while. Our outrage quickly subsides, only to reappear the next time. It’s a reoccurring nightmare that we seem powerless to end.
I will illustrate our situation by analogy.
There is a large boat which has sprung a leak in its hull and is sinking. The people on the boat are divided on what to do. One group says “We have to bail out the water”. Another group says “Good idea, but while we’re bailing out the water, we should be working to plug the leak.” Another group says “We should call the Coast Guard.” A fourth group says “Why not do all of these?” Which is the most sensible group?
Gun people adamantly insist that the gun is off limits; the problem is with the shooter. He should be our sole focus. They demand that there be no legislation on gun control, none, zero, nada, no way. Let there be more guns. Arm teachers. Hire retired soldiers and police for school security. Gun-makers, their stock-holders, and Fox news-junkies couldn’t be more pleased.
But isn’t the problem complex enough that it requires a (forgive the simile) shotgun approach? If we really agree that we have a serious problem, why not attack it with everything we’ve got?
Restrictions or banning the purchase of weapons optimally-designed for killing the most people in the shortest time, and background checks on all gun purchasers should be part of the fix equation. That seems clear to me. The other part, the mentality of the shooter, is another. But how do we predict when someone who has been acting normally, up to a point, is suddenly going to freak out? Are danger signs always telegraphed? And even when they are, history shows that we have not done a good job of reading them and reacting. Besides, how can we arrest or order someone to accept psychiatric help before they commit a crime? I am not skilled enough to suggest answers to the shooter part, but somebody wiser should be.
Should we excoriate lawmakers for not helping with this problem, for putting job security over conscience? Remember one thing: Their jobs depend on our votes. If gun violence was considered a priority problem in this country, the representatives we elect would be forced to accede to our demands to fix it. Apparently, it is not a priority problem for lawmakers. Maybe the problem is us!
Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University
Leslie Moorhouse says
Dear Bob, If you have ever been a citizen of a country that is run by a military regime, or a bunch of self important people who do not want their citizens to be able to object to their incessant power, then you would understand why the founding fathers used the language they did in the Second Amendment. They used the word “arms” knowing that the future would conjure up all types of new weaponry, and that the government would possess that weaponry. If you infringe on our ability to bear the same weaponry as the government, then whats the point? The Jews might have had a chance……and that was less than 81 years ago!
Clark Bjorke says
the problem most definitely is us. Guns are the American idolatry. We worship guns and violence. We all are ingrained by our culture with the fantasy that we could be a “good guy with a gun” who saves the day.
Bob Moores says
Dear Leslie, No, I have never been a citizen of a country that is run by a military regime or a bunch of people who do not want their citizens to be able to object to their incessant power. Have you? Our Constitution prevents our government from being a fascist regime run by an autocratic dictator, so equating it to Nazi Germany is not only a false equivalency, but seems a strawman attempt to unfairly exaggerate my position. I was not arguing to take your guns away, not even your AR-15. I spoke of restrictions or banning new purchases of WMDs. And I think it is reasonable to require background checks, minimum age for ownership, waiting periods, and licensing, especially for weapons optimized for mass murder.
Are you suggesting it should be your right to “bear the same weaponry as the government.” Are you serious? Or did I misunderstand your meaning?
Do you object to the requirement to have a license for driving a car, and testing to prove competency? If so, let’s let ten-year-olds drive. If not, why not for gun ownership?
My main point is that the gun must be part of the equation/discussion in preventing gun violence, not the whole part, but a part nonetheless. Do you disagree?
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Bob, Once again you are promoting the myth that there are no background checks when purchasing a firearm. Why are you doing this?
Karen O'Connor says
There are abackground checks but far too many loopholes to make them meaningful. And you know it.
Stephen Schaare says
Karen, No, I do not know that. Could you please be more specific?
Thank you-Steve
Bob Moores says
Stephen, Maryland has pretty good coverage on background checks and waiting periods, but I was not talking specifically about Maryland. There is no consistency across the US. Check Texas, for example. And most, if not all, of the background checking is for criminal records in the NICS database. I think prior mental issues of the purchaser (e.g., domestic abuse where no arrest or conviction ensued) should be addressed also.
Wendy Costa says
One of the best op-Ed pieces I have read about fixing our gun problems in America.
Don E. Itall says
“Why do citizens need military-style assault rifles?” Why do you feel it necessary that I justify my actions concerning whether or not I choose to possess a firearm to you? How does my ‘need’ for something even concern you? Do I ask you to give me reasons why you like asparagus or a particular novel or choose the style of haircut you wear? Do you ‘need’ an automobile with 4 doors? Concerning guns, hundreds if not thousands of innocents (and perhaps, not to innocent) are killed or wounded every year in America’s inner cities but there is little hue or cry about this. Why?
Deirdre LaMotte says
Because Don, my love of books and asparagus is
not caused by the perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Oh, and these do not cause mass slaughters.
The thousands killed in inner cities is the same
problem with mass shootings: the obscene availability
of guns.
Stephen Schaare says
Deidre, The killings in our cities have mostly illegal weapons. Way too many. If you imprison the killers, it stops their killing of others.
Got to address personal behavior.