Get Armed, Stay Armed

I don't generally write about guns. I like 'em! Especially shotguns! And unlike the New York Times or the San Antonio Express-News, I've read the entire 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, all the way through. It seems pretty clear to me. But I've got some structural problems standing in the way of having guns of my own. For one, I can't afford them. For two, I can't afford buying a membership to a range. For three, I don't have any friends locally so there's nobody to (for example) do anything when I yell "Pull!"

And hunting is Right Out. I got to help eviscerate a deer when I was 8 or 9 and, well, let's just say if I go deer hunting I'm Very Selective. Unless that beast is a true freak--third set of antlers, has my name spelled out on its hide, has a bullseye on its chest a la The Far Side, that deer will will not die by my hand. Not worth the effort. There's all the evisceration, for one. Easy enough. Then you gotta take the carcass to a butcher That Very Night, and mayhap to the taxidermist (in the case of Mr. 3 Antlers). That's just that night. I mean, you aren't gonna get any more reading done that night and you're probably going to smell awful and I hope your truck has a bedliner!

My dad is a gun enthusiast. He doesn't look like it (he doesn't look like the stereotype), but he's a stone cold freak when it comes to these things. He's left-handed, and I think that may have radicalized him to some extent. He makes his own stocks so that they're more comfortable for him--I gather the better stocks are keyed towards the right-handed majority. There's also the problem of brass ejection, which he's only solved by being lightning quick. Like a balding, graying jungle cat. Brass usually ejects out to the right, which is fine for us (let's face it) normal people because when you're shooting a rifle or pistol or pump-action shotgun, your body is positioned to the left of the device. The brass pops harmlessly away from your body. When you're left-handed, you position your body to the right of the thing and You Are A Target. So he builds his own.

Since my dad rolls his own rifles (and shells, but that's common enough), he also buys parts. Functional stuff, like that thingy that goes on the front of the barrel to redirect the gasses. And scopes. He likes to shoot things from far, far away. I think he went a little crazy when he bought one of these parts and a note in the box it came in told him that with this part, he was now only 2 accessories away from owning the aesthetic monster known as an Assault Weapon and his rifle may well be banned.

Well, he's an accountant and he follows rules, so this annoyed him. At its most basic, these accessories did not change the key functions of the rifle. For example, it wouldn't make the rifle full-auto (that's the biggest bugaboo of the left) or magically make the bullets more deadly. And anything to make a weapon accurate makes it more safe, not less so (see the differences in operations twixt ground troops and air support in the current war as opposed to WWII, Vietnam, or even the previous Gulf War). So there was no change in the function of the weapon.

The AWB really annoyed him. He's convinced that the lefties won't stop until we get to that scene in Red Dawn where the Commies raid the local sporting goods store to find out who in town has a gun. And you know, the lefties won't stop... but now they're losing that argument! This was unthinkable in the past, but the successful (and pools-of-blood-free) implementation of concealed-carry and "shall-issue" laws took a lot of teeth out of the arguments the left used. The lefty argument for gun control equated guns in circulation with criminal use of same, which is ridiculous. And it's hard to argue that more guns make for less crime when you can't get more guns floating around to prove the point. It's one of the right's few social experiments. John Lott's book helped out quite a bit.

I, being a right-winger, have a strong philosophical attachment to the idea of as many guns as absolutely possible. As long as you're sound of mind and know how to handle a weapon, you should have a weapon and stay armed as much as possible. I'm best at this, so I'll argue this philosophy from the left. Or what should be the left. I believe every minority population in the world is best served by being armed. Blacks, homosexuals, women (my mom packs heat, my sister's a crack shot), hispanics, Jews (it's worked well for Israel!); any population that stands to be oppressed stands a good shot of staying unoppressed as long as it's armed. This has worked in practice! See the movie Deacons for Defense to see this in action. When the local representatives of the Democratic Party insisted on wearing sheets and riding horses through the black part of town, the oppressed minority took up arms and sorta ceased being the oppressed minority.

Now, was it that the local KKK decided that these specific blacks were armed and must be avoided? Was the presence of an armed black man required for the necessary effect (that effect being: no more random assault or arson based on skin color)? Nope. The mere idea of an armed man that would defend himself and those around him kept the riders out. This is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Sovereigns (nations) keep armies around not to fight wars, but to keep from fighting wars. Sovereign men should keep themselves armed for the exact same purpose. The body politic (I hate to call them The People) should be understood to be very possibly able to defend themselves with lethal force. Percentagewise, there aren't a whole lot of Texans with concealed-carry permits. But it didn't take much. They don't wear signs that say "don't rob me, attack me, or otherwise put my life or possessions in jeopardy, because I am so very, very, armed." How many others does this uncertainty protect? That's a hell of an opportunity cost for your standard criminal to consider.

Oddly enough, if you remove the uncertainty to the negative, your rationally self-interested criminal will do the math in his head. Concealed-carry not allowed? Great! Marks are just walking around unarmed! Most people obey the law and have been made weaker by this one! Awesome. Then there's the big one: strict gun-control laws. Onerous regulations that keep all but the most determined and patient from keeping a weapon around. Think Great Britain, New York, Washington D.C. The rationally self-interested criminal incurs very little risk in trespassing, burglarizing, or otherwise robbing homes, cars, whatever. Chances are good the marks aren't allowed to defend themselves. Sure, people can use baseball bats or whatever for this, but that's only so much protection. These rely on strength, speed, and a certain level of accuracy to be effective. A firearm relies on accuracy, but generally the threat of armed force is quite enough to halt criminal activity. The rationally self-interested criminal takes advantage of opportunities to extend his life.

That's my spiel.