2nd
week, 2nd school shooting. How in 2015 is this still acceptable in
the USA? History, self narratives, libertarian ideal, and rapid
technological change. We as a country have not kept pace with many of
the root causes. This makes dealing with any of them progressively
harder.
hey
I wrote about something relevant 3 years ago.
anyhoo
History.
The
2nd amendment doesn't mean what you probably think it means. Or at
least it didn't at the time of it's writing. The founding fathers
didn't think of themselves as "Americans." They thought of
themselves as Englishmen in America. The Bill of Rights was mostly
meant to codify rights they thought they had traditionally under
English common law. As such land owning males (aka voters aka writers
of the laws) had kept firearms since the fall of knights. For various
reasons.
How
do we know this? Well they were very clear about it in the Federalist
Papers. The letters and pamphlets used to sell the Bill of Rights.
These discussions included why they were written and what they meant
to the authors.
Something
proponents of gun control point out is that there was a need for well
organized and trained militias. This was for a few reasons. 1) The
newly formed collection of states was afraid of England returning in
force to reclaim their territory. 2) The founders of the federal
government were afraid of a national military becoming a tool of
oppression by those in power. As had just happened against them. Sort
of. This is also why the 3rd amendment exists. To prevent the same
actions the British had taken from being used in the future by an
oppressive American government. 3) At the time of founding the
federal government had no mechanism or desire to raise the funds to
pay for a standing army.
As
the revolution had been won on the backs of average people with
hunting and sporting equipment like the Kentucky Rifle (not
mentioning the mercenaries and outside nations wanting to stick it to
the English Empire and expand their influence in the Western
Hemisphere.) The American Revolutionary War was one of the first
documented cases of practical sniping of high value targets, as
riflemen would aim for commanders and cannoneers. This was unheard of
at the time, and we would 200 years later come to resent other groups
doing the same to us.
The
idea of keeping these same men trained, and ready to be called upon
to defend the State, or Nation was one of the main thrusts of the
original 2nd Amendment. Don't need to pay them, they aren't a
standing army, and they would self arm. Win, win, and win.
This
would change after more states entered the union, the push to expand
ever westward, the War of 1812, and of course the idea that a nation
might not be taken seriously until a standing army was available to
respond to incidents. Fun (awkward fact) until after the American
Civil War, internationally the USA was seen as a very minor power,
and considered not a military threat. Only the logistics of
trans-Atlantic supply lines really kept people from seriously
considering an invasion. Well that and the lucrative trade fighting
between states. Huh trade fighting between states? That happens
today. Other rant, other time.
Technology:
Want
to know the main technological difference as far as this debate goes
between an old muzzle loader like the muskets and rifles (ignoring
the whole percussion cap/flint lock issue) used during the revolution
and the breech loading weapons that replaced them? Ease of use and
rate of fire. A skilled, top tier shooter with the Kentucky Rifle
hope to get 2 rounds a minute, perhaps more with some tricks of the
trade, and with out careful aiming. The M1819 Hall Rifle which became
America's first breech loading rifle and saw use during the American
Civil War using a cartridge could fire 8-9 times a minute with much
less training, and less need to stand up to load powder. That is a
massive difference. It would take four highly trained Kentucky
Riflemen to place as much lead in the air as one averagely trained
soldier with an M1819 Hall Rifle.
Not
to mention now we are not talking musket balls, we are talking more
aerodynamic slugs, that have ridges to grab the rifling. These slugs
are also designed to be expanded into the chamber by the explosive
force; allowing for a better seal in the rifle for a higher velocity.
1 soldier, 4 times the fire rate, effective range increasing from 200
yards to 1000 yards. How do you foresee that? A weapon system
evolving so much in such a short time, that the context of it's use
becomes so different between people a single generation later? The
difference between a B17 Flying Fortress and a B2 Spirit? Faster,
larger payload, harder to hit?
Now
single shot weapons are not the only player on the field. Dr Richard
Gatling developed a practical repeating rifle, and one of the first
deployed machine guns as we define them today. While not a perfect
design (plagued with misfires, feed jams, and poor maintenance
leading to gear issues) the same basic design would 115 years later
scare the crap out of the USSR when electrified and put into the air.
The Gatling Gun was capable of 200 rounds a minute. While taking a
crew of 4 to operate, that would out pace almost any marching
formation. Gatling designed it hoping to shrink the size of standing
armies, and to make war futile by making storming a Gatling Gun
defended position impossible. Something Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim would
think again when he designs and sells the Maxim Machine Gun to
multiple world armies. As does Alfred Nobel think when he give the
world dynamite. Alfred Nobel was so scarred about what his invention
did to Europe in WWI that he started the Nobel Prize to help reward
attempts at peace and science for sciences sake.
In
a pattern that is to be repeat time and time again, the new weapons
simply cause high casualties at first under the old tactics and
strategies. Then as battlefields adapt, usage and counter usage
advances, casualty rates drop, but remain higher than before the new
technology. By WWII we have as a species developed automatic
handguns, rifles, sub-machine guns, and battle field flame throwers.
Again,
with no way to foresee any of these in the time of the writing of the
2nd Amendment. Not quite convinced that the technology has far
surpassed the original use of the text? Let us mention ammunition. We
have already touched upon the difference between a musket ball and a
civil war slug. Now let us talk about current options.
How
cruel/task specific do you want to get? Hunting, hollow point, or
soft lead gotcha covered. Need to penetrate cover, or armor? Metal
jacketed, or metal cored Armor Piercing rounds will punch through
quite a bit. Add some Teflon coating on top and those weaved
protections are now less viable. Short range? Replace a shotgun slug
or shot with a flechette charge. Now you have a high velocity hard to
remove shrapnel. Want to wound without killing, or maybe start a
fire? Magnesium and Phosphorus rounds have you covered there. Oh,
some of these not legal in your area? Do you have access to an
ammunition press, a 3D printer, and or some power tools you can get
at the local hardware store? Whelp so much for that.
Also
yes, we now live in a world were you can 3D print a gun.
Here
I was going to go on about gun culture, how it has evolved from,
novelty of inventors, and monks. It later becomes a hunting weapon
and status symbol of the rich. Later becoming the survival and
imperial tool of explorers and conquerors. Then slowly becoming the
answer to all conflicts, to have the better gun, to use the gun
better, quicker, and smarter.
I
then realized I am at 1400 words already. Then I wanted to talk about
America's love of Libertarian ideals in the sense that the right to
swing my fist stops at your nose. As long as it doesn't affect you
what I do is my business (mostly, except bedrooms, doctors, and
perhaps, childcare.) Then again 1400 words. I was really gonna go
into the data of other countries and cultures. How America used to
blatantly steal the best ideas around (what I call the post Commodore
Perry Japan.)
You
get the point.
I
was gonna make a pretty bibliography, and insert proper citations
everywhere. I mean EVERYWHERE.
I
am tired. Tired of writing this again. Tired of talking about this
again. Tired of feeling like a reasonable person, willing to listen,
learn, and approach an obvious problem pragmatically in hopes of
finding a better day tomorrow than today.
And
that is why things don't change. This conversation is not easy, it
takes buy in. It takes time, energy and the willingness to listen to
all concerns. That is a finite resource in a human. Literally a
finite resource. There is only so much energy someone can output
before wearing out.
At
this point I wanted to go into my growing up post Kip Kinkle, in
Oregon. Being the weird white kid, that some people labeled
“dangerous.” And how I have no way of putting myself in the shoes
of a kid who isn't white today, who may be labeled a terrorist, and
knows they are more in danger of someone else shooting the school
then a terrorist bombing the school. Also, white people who shoot
schools are terrorists. By definition.
See
again I am tired.
So
once again I post my impotent rage, into the void, safe knowing no
one will read this far. Knowing as much as I want this conversation I
cannot maintain the energy required. And that part of the fault for
the continued culture of gun violence in my country is my laziness
and failure to be proactive.
/end
rant