Guns in America

"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum _est" (A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.)

Lucius Annaeus Seneca "The Younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD).

The words of Lucius Seneca were spoken around 60 AD. That shows that in his time, a civilized Greece faced the same dilemma we are discussing today. I have found no law(s) banning swords in ancient Greece. Yet, Greece still lives today.

Another senseless tragedy has stuck America with the cold blooded slaughter of innocent concert goers in Las Vegas. The slaughter is incomprehensible and difficult to accept by anyone with any degree of decency and civility. The loss is tremendous on every level and I believe, has forever changed America’s perception of security and guns in society.

Since the tragedy at Newtown, the issue of gun control has resurfaced with a vengeance. Everyone from the common citizen to well known celebrities have given their input with varying degrees of extremes. I do agree that something must be done to avoid future senseless acts of violence against innocent people, but this issue is not about guns, its’ about senseless violence by people with mental and emotional issues when they get an agenda and get their hands on guns.

Violence has been around since the dawn of man and will continue to exist regardless of the method. These unstable people we’d like to control can just as easily kill a lot of people with a knife, explosives, chemicals, or blow up a building full of innocent people. The 9 -11 hijackers killed hundreds of innocent people, and they were only armed with box cutters! If unstable people have a point to make, they will make it with or without guns. They will either find a way around any ban or come up with some other sick way to make their point (like the hijackers). What they come up with, may be even more gruesome than people being shot. Remember folks, that’s why they’re unstable, they don’t think rationally. With that being said, I don’t believe any law or policy will be as effective as most anti gun people would have us believe.

Several societies around the world have weapons bans, yet the violence continues with and without guns. Mexico has one of the most stringent gun policies in the world and look at the problem they have. In Mexico, a common citizen cannot own a gun without first going through time and money consuming red tape gauntlet which is not worth the effort. Yet, the criminal elements in Mexico now have guns that match or exceed the firepower of law enforcement and the military, and that’s with a full ban. Most of the criminals’ weaponry is easily obtained through the black market and other illegal means to circumvent the so called “law”.

“The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become”.   Mark Twain

While its’ not fair to evenly compare the American policy with Mexican policy, but, the principal remains the same. Violence is violence and people who suffer with mental and emotional problems and have agendas will express themselves regardless of any ban, law, or policy and human nature is a commonality we all share, be it good or evil.

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws”. Plato”.

The problem with coming up with a solution for this issue is that whatever policy is enacted, it must be one that directly addresses the issue of senseless violence against innocent people and not a kneejerk reaction that would create unintended consequences and set our society up as a victim of oppression. The tricky part to any reasonable  policy will not be a ban or restriction on weapons in general or certain weapons, but first,  how to determine who can and who shouldn’t be allowed to own a weapon and how to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Who and how will mentally instability be determined? At what point do character quirks stop and instability start? What about a very clever psychopaths such as Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, or Ted Kaczynski who can easily pass a psychological evaluation and fool psychiatrists, or worse, the awkward reclusive kid who no one realizes is a psychopath because he’s never been evaluated. I don’t believe for one minute that there is one set method to determine who is at risk for a psychotic episode incident involving a mass shooting or some other gruesome crime.

As of 2 days before this posting, many of the suggestions on gun control I have heard are based purely on emotion, politics, personal beliefs or flat out irrational. Any new anti violence/gun law policy based on these traits cannot be used in consideration during the making of any policy, much less, one that will deny people their rights. Already many overzealous radicals have suggested banning all weapons across the board. In a perfect world, that may sound like a good solution, but in today’s imperfect world, where there are too many what ifs, exceptions, and shades of grey, and not to mention the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution, such a radical policy would only apply to legally licensed gun permit holders and those who have legitimate needs to have a gun.

Many gun control lobbyists and anti gun people want to attack the issue of gun control at constitutional level and trying to repeal the 2^nd Amendment. They claim that the amendment is archaic and was written for a different time when single shot muskets were the norm. I agree, but much of its intent still holds merit today. What these anti gun people fail to realize is that the when our founding father wrote the amendment, it was intended as a well-regulated armed militia composed of all able bodied men to defend against aggressors against the colonies and the government. YES, the government. The founding fathers wanted to create a nation where people were free to live their lives without fear of oppression from a government with a military, armed citizens assured that government authoritarian rule would not happen such as it did in England.

“Politicians prefer unarmed peasants”.

By repealing the 2^nd Amendment to our constitution, we are opening the door to total government control of our lives. Once an armed controlling group, be it terrorists, criminals, or the government, realizes that another has no means of defense; they will immediately assume total control and oppression will follow soon after. History has repeated this over and over as have mass murderers.

                               
Chairman Mao, (China)
Adolf Hitler (Germany)
Manuel Zelaya  (Honduras)
Fidel Castro  (Cuba)
Bashar al-Assad (Syria)
Kim Jong-un (North Korea)

I’ve included Mexican President Calderon (Mexcico), with other oppressive leaders to demonstrate how banning guns from citizens creates oppression. It leaves the common man defenseless against anyone with guns.

Another proposal is to ban only assault and fully automatic weapons from civilian use. In principal, I am against this because I believe it will eventually set precedence for further bans, and I still firmly hold to the belief that the government should not be the one to decide this unless we the people vote for it. But, due to the changing times and from what is currently happening, I do feel that some level of restrictions on assault weapons should be put in place. As a gun owner myself, and former infantryman, I would love to own an assault rifle of some type but I really don’t see a need for owning one. I will not insist on owning an assault rifle solely because it’s my right. But that’s just me. I know other gun owners who refuse to give up their “right” to own an assault rifle only because they have the right yet, never own one. Personally I think that’s a little childish and a matter of confusing privileges with rights.

I don’t claim to have all the answer for this problem but I do believe that any policy that is implemented must consider both the will of the people as a whole and the rights of the responsible gun owners. Any policy must be well thought out and not left with loopholes, confusing language, and full of ridiculous conflicts. And as difficult as it may be, this policy should be conceived without any political agendas, ear marks, or nepotism. The security of our society is at risk and should be taken seriously, not politically. No one group should be allowed to impose their will on the rights and privileges on another out of resentment, intimidation, or emotion. Gun shows should be better regulated or treated more like gun stores where background checks are required.

The issues of the definition of mentally/ emotional unstable should not be integrated to the policy, but used only when considering licensing and that determination should only be made by qualified personnel trained in the field, not politicians.

If I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I will defend that, with a gun if needed, for without the 2^nd Amendment, all the others are meaningless. 

Body Language

Well, today, I'd like to tell you about a study I read about in some science journal I read while in the DMV waiting room. Since it was the DVM, I obviously had enough time to not only read the entire article, but also War and Peace and half of Sun Tzu's "Art of War". (and yes, my license photo does look like I was hung over). Anyway, I found the study also applies to personal security as well as meeting new people. This study was originally conducted to determine if body language and eye contact had a significant role in meeting new people and avoiding others.

It has been said that body language accounts for up to 60 % of communication. The study in question was conducted to determine what effects eye contact and other body language has between strangers and the probability of interaction if eye contact was made or not. The results were quite amazing to me but I can also see how women could or would avoid eye contact to avoid a misunderstanding. The key in this study's result would be body language that accompanies eye contact.

In the study, which was conducted at night, women would be asked to walk into a dimly lit parking lot to a specific vehicle to determine the effectivenes of the lighting. Unbeknownst to them, a male test subject, a neatly dressed and groomed male who was unaware the woman was part of the study, was instructed to walk across the parking from his vehicle to the business at the same time, then asked to describe the woman in parking lot. He was under the impression the study was about the business, the woman in the parking lot was mentioned to him at the time he left his vehicle.

Here's where the results get interesting. Fourteen of the twenty women who saw the male subject walking towards them all made eye contact and acknowledged their presence with the male subjects walking towards them in the parking lot. At this point, the male researchers conclude that appearance was more likely to result in personal contact because of personal appearance and first impressions. It was at this point that a female researcher on the panel then decided to turn the tables and add another aspect to the study and included a threatening looking male subject in the test. Three thug looking males with criminal backgrounds were inserted into the male roles and the test was conducted again. When the male subjects were dressed in grungy clothing and disheveled appearance, Nineteen of the twenty women avoided contact and the women either departed from the direct route or cowered during their route to their vehicle across the lot.

This test, which turned out to prove more than intended, thanks to the woman in the panel, showed that eye contact and body language speaks more than one realizes and can determine the outcome of an encounter with a stranger.

When questioned afterwards, the grungy guys stated that the women who avoided eye contact and showed signs of fear appeared far more vulnerable than the one woman who did make eye contact and showed confidence because they feared the women who made eye contact could more easily identify them or fight back if they attacked first.

This test reenforces my belief that  appearance and confidence will trump a thug's intent because his intent is solely based on either perception or deception. Basically, a woman's confidence and body language will trump a thug's efforts most of the time, mainly because of his fear of failure.

Take this test for what it's worth to you, but I strongly believe that your confidence and your body language with strangers speaks volumes about you and can protect you.

Trust me, if I don't shave for two or three days and walking around in my work clothes, people treat me differently than when I'm clean shaven and wearing a tie and slacks. Perception means a lot but better safe than sorry. Think about that when you leaving the crowded mall to your car after four hours of power shopping!