Adding Gun Control Laws is a Bad Idea (edited)

EDIT: I guess 16 years ago this is how I felt. A lot has changed. Some of my points in there about guns being inanimate objects are logically true, but it completely ignores so much. And it's so callous. Children... real children... have to be afraid in school. They might die in school. How is that okay? We need to do something. We need research; licensing; registration; and yes... more laws. We need to do something because the current situation is not okay and has not been okay for decades. I'm not saying take away people's guns. I'm saying we need to do everything we can to protect children and other innocent people. And guns are a tool involved in the deaths of too many people. Even if they are inanimate, they are a problem.

I'll leave the rest of this post untouched, but I do not agree with it anymore...

---

So since I already made a sort of hurried attempt at getting my thoughts out about religion, I figured I'd play with another hot-button topic: Guns.

I'll say right off the bat that I believe in and support the individual's right own firearms. I hope to explain why in a manner that might be helpful to those who want to ban guns in the U.S., so they begin to understand why banning guns would be very bad.

First, an irrefutable point: There are lots of guns in the world, and lots of guns already in the United States. They exist.

Now we already have lots of gun control laws in the country, and if you do any kind of searching on Google for stats on guns brought into the country illegally... you might find yourself wondering what the hell our government is doing. I'm guessing they're doing the best they can. The fact is, the government has been trying to stop illegal trafficking of firearms for a long time. Many years. Decades even.

So let's look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say that the government passes the horrendously stupid law that says United States citizens are no longer allowed to own firearms of any kind. Now let's put aside the idea of an armed rebellion. Let's assume all the law-abiding citizens of the country agreed, and turned in all their guns. Happiness and Peace ensues right? Hell no. Think back to the part about how the government already can't keep guns out of the country, and how it already can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A law that stops citizens from owning guns is a law that condemns those citizens to a fate chosen by criminals.

Now do some research on the percentage of firearms used in violent crime which are obtained illegally. Even if the government managed to ban guns for its law abiding citizens, it wouldn't put any kind of real damper on the violent crime rate with guns. In fact, in other places in the world where stricker gun control laws have been passed (you can find this with Google searches too) crime rates have increased. Criminals have a good reason to believe that their victims will be unarmed... there's less risk for the criminals. So it makes sense even if there weren't real world example (Australia has had problems with this).

One last thing along this line of thinking. If I'm at home, and I hear someone break in (smash a window, bust the door in, pick the lock, whatever), I already know a few things about this person. First, I know it's not law enforcement officials because they announce themselves. They have to. Second, there's a good chance the person is a significant danger to me. I know that because any smart criminal is going to do a little research on their target first. If they are breaking into a house, they could easily avoid me by breaking in while I'm at work. So if they chose to break in while I'm there, it's because they want something with me. Maybe just to kill me. And if they're a stupid criminal, and broke in thining I wasn't home, I suppose they might just run away, but they might also panic and try to hurt me. In any case... if someone is breaking in while I'm home... they are a danger to me.

So assuming I notice early, and have twenty seconds or so to think, i can chose one of three options. First and probably safest is to exit through another door or window and run away and call the police from there. Depending on the bad guy, you might lose a few things, but not your life. Or if they're determined to kill you, very likely running away won't get you anything, because they'll try again. Second option is to call the police immediately and hide somewhere in the house. This option is the stupidest, but those unable to handle the third option (coming up), and who got cornered somehow might not have any other choice. Unfortunately, this means waiting for three to fifteen minutes while police try to get to you. Any person with a frying pan can kill you in less than three minutes and still get away before the police get there. Hiding is a bad idea. The third option is to fight back. And if you are one of those responsible American citizens that took shooting and gun safety courses, and you own a gun... you might have time to get that gun and shoot the guy who's breaking into your house. It's within your legal rights to do so... and i would argue that it's within your moral rights as well, though that's a whole other blog.

Now that we have that defined, it boggles my mind that so many people in this country seem to want the government to take guns away from us. Do these people think the government is capable of protecting us? I'm 100% confident that it is not possible for the government to protect us. I'm quite sure that if someone broke into my house, it would be up to me to do something about it. And I hope I have the presence of mind if it ever does happen to get my gun, find a defensible position that the intruder is less likely to notice right off, and then after I get a look at the person to make sure I'm not shooting someone I shouldn't, pull the trigger... maybe a couple times for good measure, and then call the police.

Now of course, most people will never have to deal with this. But some might, and I refuse to deprive those people of an extremely effective means of self defense. I will not support any laws that takes more rights away from citizens with respect to guns.

Okay, we all understand now (I hope) that gun control laws simply aren't capable of accomplishing what some gun control law supporters believe they will. They can't protect us from guns. But I've misspoken. And this leads me to why gun control laws are not the answer. Guns are not capable being a threat to anyone. They are inanimate objects. Guns are handled by people. Laws can not stop a person from feeling. If a person wants to kill another... there hundreds of ways other than through the use of a gun to do so. Poison, explosive, frying pan, knife, baseball bat, golf club, cricket bat, fire wood, broom handle, pillow, bare hands, rock, car, tire iron, a little push from a tall precipice...

The real problem isn't guns. It's people. So if we want to do something about making our lives freer and safer... it won't be accomplished by taking our rights away from each other.

---

The only argument that people bring up that I'm anywhere near hesitant about it deaths of children by firearm. That concept right there is awful, and I obviously hope that children will stop dying long before their times. But I do have some responses to this.

First... more children die each year in swimming pool related accidents than gun related accidents and events. Look it up on Google (I love how readily available information is). Look up drunk driving accidents while you're at it. The numbers I'm asking you to find are not meant to say that children dying in gun related incidents is okay. It's meant to give you perspective. Guns aren't bad by themselves... just like swimming pools.

Next, go back to my previous statements about how guns are inanimate objects. They have no ability to make decisions. Therefore it is impossible to assign any kind of blame on them. Look to the people wielding them. Some people use guns with malicious intent. Some use them to protect when there's no other choice. What we need to hope for is that citizens of the United States will take some responsibility for their own actions and for their own safety. My father owns guns. He taught me what they were and to avoid them when I was young. I listened because my father was scary, and the prospect of killing or dying was horrendous to me. My parents raised me correctly. When I was ten or so, my father started teaching me how to use guns. We went to a shooting range and practiced for a long time. I already knew what they could do. After all the practice, I knew how to handle guns to avoid bad results and to gain safety. My parents raised me correctly. If I had ever stepped out of line even a little... I would have been smacked down so hard and fast that I would have had to learn from it. You dont treat guns lightly. They are not toys. What I'm getting at is that when children die from a gun shot wound... it was irresponsible actions of parents and guardians long before that time that lead to it. If it's even possible for a kid to get a gun from his parents to bring to school... those parents screwed up big time. If kids just scream and die in the face of such a thing... their parents screwed up in not teaching them what to do in emergencies like that.

Yes... it would be ideal to have a world where there are no bad people willing to kill for hatred, anger, greed, or entertainment. But we don't live in that world. And laws can't change that. People will continue to die around the world for stupid things. Please don't hold the false belief that taking my gun away from me will somehow make you and your kids safer. Please stop being afraid and if you're up to it... go take a shooting class. See if you can learn something. See if maybe you can be one of those responsible citizens who will stand up and protect themselves and their families.

Guns are not evil. They are inanimate.

Several Aspects of Religion

So sticking with the theme of writing about things I think about a lot, I might as well write a post about religion. I'll just say right up front, that I'm agnostic. And this post is likely to include a lot of stuff the a highly religious person might find bothersome. Just a fair warning.

I've noticed in various discussions I've had with people about religion, that religion can mean lots of different things to different people. Seems obvious, but what do you think about when someone says that word? Do you think about "God", or a belief in something of all power? Do you think about church and the organization? Do you think about the philosphical tenets? The moral lessons? Do you actively think about many aspects of what religion can refer to?

I've taken to thinking about religion in three somewhat vague ways. I consider the individual's beliefs, the community's form, and the religious corporation it would be associated with. That last one is my way of referring to big religious organizations like those associated with the Vatican. Oh... damn... and I guess I have to add a fourth category... televangelism.

The Individual
This is really the most important aspect of religion. What does a given individual believe? Does that individual believe in Heaven and Hell? Enlightenment? Reincarnation? The Greek Pantheon? Redemption? God and the Devil? In this case... religion is simply "what the person believes" to me. This is where my agnosticism really comes out. Every time I talk to someone who says they believe there is a God, I wonder why. What thing in life made them begin to believe? What confirmed it for them? And the truth is that there is no proof for the existence of God (I'm using God now as a focus and example of any belief in some power so great that it has some bearing on the universe's existence).

Can you prove to me that God exists? Can you prove to me that God does not exist? What I'm left with is the knowledge that God is unprovable. But for some reason billions of people around the world believe whole-heartedly that there is something there based solely on the word of other people... and perhaps a desire to believe.

This takes us to faith. It comes up in almost every religion discussion I'm part of. I'm told it's not about proof. Some might argue that faith and happiness as a result is preferable to skepticism and misery. People that have faith can get emotional support in life from their faith. They can find happiness in "knowing" they will go to Heaven when they die. They can believe that all the bad events of their lives have a reason and that God has a plan for them. It can bring a sense of comfort and belonging. And all of that is true. It can do wonderful things for a person. But the thing that confuses the hell out of me is that people are capable of genuinely believing... as if God were the truth (like those stupid car decals)... as if God were a fact. But I already know... as should everyone of rational mind... that God is unprovable. How can these religious people believe in something without proof? Just because it's comforting they're unwilling to consider that their beliefs have no support except what some guy at a podium told them or what's written in a book... that again... was written by a human?

Why is one religion right and another one is false? Just because billions of people have believed it for a couple thousand years? Because one makes more sense to you than another? How do we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the true creator of all things? Please... read the wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster. How is it any less valid than Christianity? Buddism? Taoism? Judaism? Sure, you can say it's silly, but how can you prove it isn't true? All faith in a God or power gets you is a false sense of comfort. And I refuse to comfort myself with something unprovable.

This stance of mine makes it hard for me to interact with other people sometimes. But fortunately I have managed to save my ponderings for the internet of late, and I avoid the topic when I can with friends. I have several highly intelligent friends who are also highly religious... and it confuses the heck out of me. Maybe a random person from the internet can shed some light on it.

Religious Community
The next aspect I wanted to look at (man this is getting long, and I'm probably already skipping thoughts in my attempt at getting through it all) is the community of religious people. By this I mean the group of people who belong to a church or equivalent group locally... people that get together and hold picnics, fundraisers, do charity work, and so on. This is the one aspect of religion that I really like a lot. Sure... these things brainwash the kids that get dragged in to the sermons into the same unprovable belief system, but while I hate that unprovable assertions are made, I can't deny some of the beneficial effects. Morals can be taught this way. And so I bite my tongue a bit. The really good part of this though is the fact that it becomes a community. People getting together with commonality, sharing their burdens, helping each other, meeting each other, and developing a sense of belonging to a healthy community. These small churches that can accomplish that... I like them... even though I'm not fond of the belief system.

With that said, I've considered joining a church just for the social aspect. That might be insulting to people who actually believe what the church is teaching, but I'm trying to convey how much I admire the community aspect of the church. But... as I mentioned before... I can't believe in something just because it might be comforting or afford me a bond with people I didn't know before. I can't choose to believe in something so obviously unprovable. So I'm stuck with a chasm between me and religious people. Unfortunately for me, I don't enjoy watching professional sports either, so I'm right out of luck on what to talk about in social situations.

The Overgrown Religious Institutions...
The Vatican is horrifying to me. Any religious institution that can affect people on that scale scares the hell out of me (yes... I keep using the word "hell" on purpose). When they try to insinuate themselves into government decisions, I begin to believe that society is headed for a huge collapse. This is the level of religion that I hate. I don't understand individual belief. I admire community bonds. I hate when people try to use religion to justify legal actions. The church saying that gay marriage is wrong and therefore should be illegal... that's a load of crap. Sure... a gay couple couldn't get the religious ceremony in a church that doesn't agree with gay marriage, but who cares about that? Marriage at this point is a legal definition that any two people should have the right to. There are tax benefits and so forth that makes it so we can't use gender to discriminate here. Anyway... that's just an example of where big religious institutions try to throw their weight around.

Let's not forget how many wars have been fought over big religion. It is my conclusion that big religious institutions are detrimental to society. I am open though to the possibility of examples that don't fall into this category. But no one can deny the negative effects of so many religious institutions... no can deny the wars, the persecution, and the divisive influence it can have on that scale.

Televangelism... ugh...
My thoughts on this are best described as disgust and pity. Those guys that get up on stage and preach to the world on television are some of the most evil people I've ever been exposed to. Maybe some of them actually believe the crap they're spewing, and yes... their devoted followers may receive that comfort benefit I mentioned earlier... but really... the televangelist is asking for money. Send them money for redemption. Have you ever watched one of these shows? It's sick. In a financial way you kind of have to admire them. They're milking gullible people who are desperate for comfort. In every other way, they're deplorable.

Then comes the followers. Them I feel pity for. I'm not sure I have to describe that further. How do you go from rational human being to a sheep that depends on a televangelist for emotional life support?

Wrap Up
Perhaps this was too big a topic for me to squish into a blog post. I guess what I was hoping to convey was a rational look at why religion should go away. And I always hope that someone who is suffering with the unprovable beliefs of a religion might wake up and realize that there's a really strong probability that their religion is wrong. And now this post is devolving into me ranting. Unfortunately for those of strong religious belief... they still can't prove their religion is right.

Introspection

There are some things over the course of my day that make me really mad. Really... the only thing that happens on a daily basis is that I get mad at other drivers. And I'm pretty sure that the "points" I have against them are valid, but the real problem is something else. I'll go over my pet peeves on other drivers first to give you an idea of what's making me mad, and then see if I can come to a useful conclusion...

My first pet peeve is drivers who don't know how to use their turn signals correctly or who don't bother to use them. They serve a purpose in traffic. They alert other drivers that you are intending on doing something other than follow the current pattern. An example is when you change lanes (cross the dotted line). If a driver doesn't use the turn signal, I should be safe in driving as though that person is going to continue following their course. Not using a turn signal at the right time can easily mean accidents. And yet on a daily basis, I see people use turn signals in "turning only" lanes, or lanes where the road is curving away from the other lane... even though it's the expected behavior to continue to follow the lane. Then I see people cross the dotted white line without turn signals, or actually turn out of the main path onto a side road without a turn signal. This is the most minor of my pet peeves about driving.

Next in severity is loitering in the left lane on the highway. The left lane is called the passing lane. The right lane is called the travel lane. When you are just driving on the highway, you're supposed to be in the right lane. If you catch up to someone and want to drive faster than them, you use your turn signal to switch lanes, move to the left lane, pass the car, and use your turn signal to get back into the right lane as soon as you're done passing. It's actually a pretty neat algorithm. Now I understand that in times of heavy traffic this becomes harder and I often give up and stay in the left lane just in hopes of going faster... but it has to be pretty heavy traffic. But there's no excuse for those people who just sit in the left lane not passing anyone during normal or light traffic. Sometimes, they end up keeping pace with a car in the right lane... and then don't seem to care that a huge line of cars is building up behind them. I hate those people. They should be fined until they smarten up and drive correctly. This probably causes me the biggest aggravation on the road... being stuck behind someone who seems oblivious to the world around them or the people they are inconveniencing.

My final big pet peeve with other drivers is the most dangerous one: Merging. How is it that people can pass driver's education classes, pass the practical exam, and then not know how to merge. A quick explanation: Match speed with the traffic you intend on merging with, then move into the traffic. It's pretty simple. So why is it that so many people come to a stop at the end of the on ramp to a highway? What do they think the on ramp is for? I'll tell you. It's for matching speed with the highway traffic. The only time you should be coming to a stop on the on ramp is if the highway traffic is also stopped. And these people are going to get someone killed. It's so much harder to merge with highway traffic from a stop. And everyone behind them who was forced to stop also are now in danger. This one pisses me off the most. These people should lose their licenses.

Now with all of that said, I end up coming to work in a bad mood, and I end up going home from work in a bad mood. It's like a twice daily dose of medicine to keep me agitated. But here's the introspective part. Why am I really getting mad about this? I'm looking at other people who I have no real influence on, and I'm getting mad at them. They are influencing me because I make it happen. I shouldn't be getting mad at these people. I've been driving for nearly 16 years, and have only gotten into two accidents with other drivers involved... and they were both my fault. Granted, the conditions of the accidents were fairly extreme (like ice on the road that I under estimated), but they were still my fault. And while it bothers me that people don't use their turn signals correctly, it hasn't caused an accident that I've seen. And while people being inconsiderate in the left lane on the highway is also bothersome, I'm still going to get where I'm going with only a few minutes difference in arrival time at most. I just need to change my expectations and not be so impatient. And while people stopping to merge is stupid and dangerous, I haven't been in an accident because of it yet, and getting mad about it isn't going to teach the bad driver anything.

So the problem is me.

I'm getting mad for no good reason. I sit here as I type this and wonder if I can apply this knowledge to my life. I wonder if I can help myself be less angry with a seemingly simple understanding that getting angry won't benefit anyone. It won't help me deal with anything. It won't help my headaches go away. It won't help my work. It won't help me relax at home when the work day is done. I understand that anger is an emotion that can be very important in some situations, but I also understand it will never help me make good decisions too. If I can change myself... I think I'll be a happier person.

An end of the week beginning

I've never really thought I had enough to write about that other people might be interested in reading. I've written quite a bit in my time, but I've only shared bits and pieces. But even when I wrote in a journal or in an odd file on my computer, I realize that the audience of the writing is not me. It's whomever happens to read it. I seem to write as though I expect someone to dust off an old journal decades down the road and read something that evokes something important in their thoughts. I think most people probably feel like they have something important to say, and most people would feel happy to know that someone is listening. And I think the internet is a pretty big example of that. We all have a voice here, and lots of potential listeners.

So I guess I'm hoping that I do have enough to say that people might find it interesting and maybe even helpful. Hopefully if you're reading this there's already a substantive post up about something that you can read. This is just a greeting. So hello, and welcome to my blog.