Guns for Bloody Combat or
Defense of Civil Society? by
Steve Loomis, LTC,
U.S. Army (Ret) |
|
The bloodshed in our schools,
malls and streets will continue unabated now
that Congress gave in to the money and public
threats of the gun lobby. The
sooner our elected officials stop their dance
with the devil's guns the safer we will all then
be.
Once or twice a week, I drive
across town to a mall or out to the VA to visit
one of our vets in the hospital. Do I have to
worry about people carrying guns at the mall? Do
I have to worry about guns in the cars I drive
alongside? Do I have to worry about a burglar
carrying a weapon into my home before I return?
I am tired of having to worry every time I go
out to the mall, or downtown, or just for a
drive whether the people around me are carrying
a weapon, legal or not, and knowing that if I
carry a weapon it will only increase the danger.
In fact the more people that carry a weapon in
public the more likely we are to see injury or
death in any potential or perceived
confrontation.
As a combat officer who led
an infantry platoon in the Highlands of Vietnam
in 1969-70, I carried an M-16 assault rifle and
was trained to effectively use every weapon
authorized in an infantry battalion. My men were
well trained in the use of their weapons and
never once misused them.
This
was true for several reasons; first, their
backgrounds were mandatorily screened at
enlistment for mental issues, criminal records
and suitability. They were trained to use their
weapons in battle under the Law of Land Warfare
and use them as a part of their team. They were
more likely to use their weapons with discipline
and responsibility. Ridiculously, this means
military personnel must have a background check
to carry an assault rifle in combat in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but in our home communities,
criminals and mentally ill can purchase guns and
assault weapons and carry them at will. Any GI
or veteran knows these assault weapons are
weapons of war, not personal protection. The
truth is shotguns are far better for home
protection. Strong locks, an alarm, a dog, even
a well placed rose bush may be better home
protection.
If
law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves, it
is primarily to protect themselves from those who do not
obtain their guns through background checks, and perhaps
also from fanatics who are members of extreme political
groups and national arms organizations.
As a
combat officer I have aimed my gun with the intent to
kill. That is not a responsibility to be taken lightly
or in a moment of passion or false bravado. I have had a
gun aimed at me and I suspect that the gun holder was
more afraid than I was. That only increases the chance
the trigger will be pulled.
My
father and I used to be National Rifle Association
members but not anymore. When NRA opposes universal
backgrounds checks for firearms, it stands for something
that most Americans no longer want. My dad and Scouting
taught me in the out of doors. As a young man I hunted
water fowl and field birds with my Browning shotgun, and
deer with my rifle. Rifle hunting was too easy, so I
changed to hunting deer with a bow. Now I hunt with a
camera. Other than being shot at in Vietnam, the closest
I ever came to injury was by a inexperienced and
untrained "long time hunter". It wasn't Dick Chaney.
If
we look more closely at the mass murders of Sandy Hook
Elementary school in Newtown (27 mostly 5-6 year olds
killed, ), Century Theatre in Aurora (12 killed, 58
wounded), Tucson (1 Congress woman wounded, 6 killed
including 1 Federal Judge, 12 wounded), Virginia Tech in
Blacksburg (32 killed, 17 wounded) and Columbine High
School (12 killed, 21 wounded), they reveal something
the gun lobby will not admit. Although universal
background checks would probably not have stopped all
five of these mass murders, they would have reduced the
incidents and the numbers killed. Definitely! Each of
the murders should have been denied purchase, possession
and use of firearms and assault weapons that did so much
damage for reasons of mental illness, age, or criminal
convictions.
Most
of the mass killings have been done with guns bought
without mandatory background checks, or acquired from
family or friends without background checks. It is
essential for public safety, that we prevent criminals,
mentally unbalanced and underage from buying or
otherwise obtaining guns, particularly assault weapons.
In the past thirty years in our country there have been
over 3500 deaths caused by terrorism. In that same time
900,000 gun deaths of all types have occurred.
Just
because a person can or does carry a weapon does not
make them responsible or safe. It is more likely they
become more dangerous to themselves and those around
them. Why? The simple act that they carry a weapon
clearly implies they are willing to use it. Are they
trained as law enforcement officers to recognize when,
where and how to use deadly force? No! Most are not and
this only increases the danger to those around them and
to themselves, particularly if they perceive an insult
to their fragile masculinity.
Some
citizens use the cover of constitutional rights to make
an insane argument that anyone should be able to carry
any weapon. They hype a remote fear of "weapons
confiscation" compromising or outright stealing the
safety of our families, schools, malls, communities
under claims that more weapons will make us safer. Those
arguments are absurd. They argue against universal
background checks allowing even more guns into the hands
of potentially dangerous convicted criminals, mentally
ill and under age. How can the presence of guns in
everyone's hands truly make us safer? Or is it just
asking for more gun fights on our public streets?
No
one is arguing for registration to remove all guns from
our society. The 2d Amendment clearly protects the right
of gun ownership under the provision "...the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed", but it says nothing about preventing
criminals, mentally ill or under age from obtaining
them. The first part of the amendment clearly allows
select limits under the provision of "A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free
State...."
I
fought hard and long in our courts and legislatures as a
gay soldier for the right to serve my country and now to
retire in peace. To lose my life or limb now to some
random gunshot incident by someone who obtained a gun
without a universal background check or some wild shot
by an ill trained hotshot trying to stop someone he
thought a criminal on the street, would be ironic in the
extreme knowing the gun lobby helped make it possible.
Multiple systematic national polls show 80-90% of
Americans want universal background checks, while the
gun lobby polls claims the opposite. Their polls
are "opt in polls", notoriously taken from those they
contact, always favorable to them. Major police chief
organizations, on the other hand, strongly favor
universal background checks. U.S. citizens support
universal background checks, knowing that it will not
prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining personal
weapons. Even so, the Senate voted with the gun lobby to
block universal background checks.
Former Congresswoman Gabby Gifford was right when she
wrote the searing truth that the U.S. Senate is afraid
of the gun lobby and grovels for its millions of dollars
of lobbying money. A Senate minority voted under the
clear open threat of the gun lobby and its millions of
dollars of blood money, to prevent universal background
checks. They are claiming that the more guns we have in
the hands of everyone, including criminals, mentally ill
and under age, the safer we all will be. Baloney, lies,
hogwash! The fear of the gun lobby and its gun
manufacturing partners killed this bill in the Senate.
With
the gun lobby and gun manufacturers, bombers and murders
have the best, most wealthy lobby in American politics.
In previous years they blocked universal background
checks and also explosive chemical tags that would have
allowed investigators to dependably trace bomb
components such as used in the Oklahoma City, Montgomery
and Boston bombings among dozens of others.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013, was the blackest most
disgraceful day in our Senate since the dark hateful
days of the McCarthy hearings, only this will continue
to be far more deadly than anything Joseph McCarthy did.
Those Senators are dancing with the devil and must know
we will not tolerate their self serving dance.
© 2013
Steve Loomis, Gay Military Signal