Leave the NRA Alone-- A Liberal's Essay

essay

Someone close to me once suggested I start my articles with a twisty title, something which seems illogical at first glance. "It'll draw readers in" I was told, and being a novice writer I agreed. I amended my style to include all manner of interesting (I thought) headings, one such subset being the single-sentence flip-flop, as exemplified above. Interesting or not, it does seem to cause a brief stopover to my site from our webpage-flipping society, and so you can expect to see more such tidbits in the near future.

But what the hell does it even mean? you ask, and I would expect nothing less from you. Keen insight brought you here, and my onionlike bequeathment of information is what I hope will keep you here. I know it seems, based on the title, as though I am both for and against the National Rifle Association. That's not so much a flip-flop as it is an admission that the topic is both complex and controversial. Let's start with the basics.

The NRA was established in 1871 with the primary goal of protecting the 2nd Amendment. It advocates gun ownership rights for the general citizenry, as well as gun safety, marksmanship and the protection of hunting and self-defense rights. This made perfect sense in the 1900's. Back in 1871 gun production for sale to the public was limited to rifles, shotguns and handguns, all single-shot weapons.

Today is another matter. Modern designs have made weapons that discharge an alarming capacity of bullets. Today one person can fire the equivalent of an entire 1870's battalion worth of ammunition, effectively turning one man into an army. I doubt the founders of the NRA could have foreseen this kind of power. They might have felt differently about unrestricted access if they had known that in a hundred years a single man would have the ability to kill tens of thousands of people in just one minute with a rapid fire automatic machine gun. And currently there are guns which can fire 1 million rounds per minute.

And yet, I am not advocating any such restriction.

Yes, I am a liberal. Let me continue.

Let's talk about the receivers for a moment. Not the holders of the gun... the, err, 'holders' of the bullets which came from the gun at high speed. They go by many names: Criminals, perpetrators, enemies, victims, spouses... but one thing they have in common is that they are all human.

And one thing we can be sure about humans is they are complex creatures, not easily grouped into any one category. So although that dead guy on the ground oozing blood might have been called a 'fleeing suspect' to you... somebody else might have called him dad. Or husband, brother, son. Or a good singer. Maybe a kickass checkers player. Maybe even a helluva nice guy.

Now he's got just one title. Dead. All of his potential and all of his flaws have just been ended by you. You became judge, jury and executioner. You became GOD.

Do you really have that right? Do you even want it?

I know I picked a weaselly example, causing you to shoot somebody in the back. Sorry. I'm sure if you were staring down the barrel of a gun which had just been used on your family you would be justified in stopping the shooter with extreme prejudice. Sadly, there are some people in the world like that, and far be it from me to tell you 'NO' when leveling a deadly weapon at him to protect what's yours.

But those situations happen rarely when compared to the overall causes of gun death. Most (non-police caused) gun deaths are in the 'accidental' and 'suicide' columns, which begs an entirely different question that will be touched upon a little later. Still you have to ask yourself if there's a better way to defend yourself, without the very heavy response of 'lethal force'. I don't care how much the perp might have deserved it, you will have to live with killing a person and having to watch them die for the rest of your life. If you don't think that affects you, ask a psychiatrist. Sometimes it destroys you.

What's the solution?

I'm glad I asked.

As we know, guns are everywhere. There's no point trying to recall them or make them illegal. If you do then only criminals will have guns, because the honest will turn theirs in. Well, I have a different slant. Keep the guns, the shotguns, the semiautomatic weapons. Keep 'em all. Hell, distribute them to people who don't have them yet. Make sure everybody can shoot a thousand shots a minute...

...BUT CHANGE THE AMMUNITION!

That's my point. GUNS don't kill people, unless you hit them very hard on the head with one. No, BULLETS kill people. Every time.

I advocate using our new technology to redesign ammunition. I no longer want to see a souped up version of a musket ball hurtling through the air on its way to some unfortunate do-badder. Nobody deserves to die for stealing, or raping, or anything which doesn't, in itself, take a life.

We need to be able to load all of our weapons with same-shaped but now nonlethal projectiles.

I know that bullets are currently everywhere. I'm saying stop making them. Stop selling them. Melt 'em down for fishing weights. Eventually all the bullets will be used up. You can still hunt with nonlethal weapons, knocking the animal submissive with the new ammo... it just means you have to kill the bear or lion or rhinoceros or elephant with a sharpened edge once you get to them. Hey... that's REAL hunting. No more cowardly, Palin-style shoot-em from the helicopter embarrassments. Call yourself a hunter then and people will actually respect you, with images of you in their mind jumping into the Everglades with a dagger in your teeth, joyfully taking on a 20 foot alligator in the foamy, thrashing water.

I can think of a number of possibilities for non-lethal ammunition right off the bat. I could see a mini stun-gun, bullets which are high-voltage batteries that shock the victim into submission. Perhaps bullet-shaped syringes with medical depressants or psychedelics, causing the bad guys to lose their balance and become ineffective at fighting or targeting.

How about mini-beanbags which enlarge during travel and knock the wind out of someone? Or shells filled with a gummy foam which expands and solidifies quickly, rendering the assailant immobile? Or a bolo apparatus? Or a sticky net? Or tear gas?

Those are several viable choices, and I'm not even a scientist. Who knows what brilliant minds will think up to solve a problem without destroying it?

My point is this: Much of the commotion surrounding guns only exists because of the lethal nature of guns. There's no coming back from gunplay.

And even if a bullet doesn't kill, it will most likely cause grievous injury, sometimes causing the victim permanent disabilities, making them a lifelong burden on society. Even if they straightened up their act they could not give back.

Remember, humans are complex, You didn't just put a bullet into a bad guy. You put a bullet into a complex human mind, capable of potential greatness, as well as horror.

There are many reasons for being a criminal which don't involve being a bad person. They're trying to care for their family after they lost their job. They're just out having stupid fun. They slipped through the cracks and were never afforded training, and have no way to make a decent living. They're at the end of their rope. They have an emotional or mental issue.

None of those reasons are worth killing, or dying, for.

I hope I've made my point. And I hope my title makes sense to you now. Because even though I drew you in with a tantalizing header, it was always my intention to keep you interested with an essay of substance.

But if you're the kind of person who goes right to the end of a book, allow me to indulge you with a glaring, slap in the face, obvious summary:

Keep the guns. Change the bullets.

Oh, by the way... I said I'd touch upon accidental and suicidal gun deaths and I will, right now. I'm honest that way. With nonlethal ammunition the chances of accident or suicide go way down. You want to get rid of all suicides? Change society.

Copyright 2011 Bruce Ian Friedman