Another disastrous morning from the staff of The Daily. Twice this week I have launched off on topics that (when I got to the end of the essay) made me a bit queasy.
This is another one. I think it is fairly good, and touches on some of the issues one confronts with the idea of firearms in this society. I know where I stand on the matter, and further understand it is another of those that are completely intractable, like the issue of abortion.
I am fortunate on that one- I am permitted my opinion, which is that it is probably better to be born than not- but I think it is irrelevant in light of the fact that I am unlikely to find myself in the position where the matter is personal, rather than philosophical. A libertarian position, I think, is consistent with holding that the matter is none of my business, and certainly not the business of the State.
Ditto a host of other issues regarding basic civil rights, guaranteed under the Constitution. Same Sex marriage, pot, blah blah blah.
One of the reasons I have been so concerned about so much of late is the demonstrated willingness of both extremes of the political spectrum to harness the power of the government to impose solutions on the people.
At some point, the whole firearms thing enters into the discussion. I have a learned pal who is of the opinion that the Second Amendment contains no personal right to the possession of firearms. He is only one Supreme Court vote away from being more correct than I am, so I have to take his opinion seriously. I can’t agree with it, of course, but that leaves one in a ticklish situation.
That sort of wound around the rose bush to a 0230 email I read in between tossing and turning over some issues that are real enough but not Daily material. It was an invitation to read a review of a neat carbine that fires pistol ammunition.
You can look up the specifics of the Kel Tec Sub 2000 if you wish, or refer to the information at http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/sub-2000/rifle/
(Kel Tech Sub 2000, folded for storage. Slick little piece. Photo Kel Tec.)
I was interested, naturally. Having a carbine that consumes the same caliber of ammunition as a pistol is obviously efficient, reduces the logistics train associated with it, is not a handgun, is accurate, and folds to a length of only 16”. Models come equipped to handle a variety of magazines (restrictions in some states make that a must) and make things much simpler from a time management perspective.
I can hear another pal saying: “It’s all Cowboys and Indians,” and to a degree I am sympathetic. It would be nice, I suppose, if there could be a world in which these machines did not exist. But that is not the world in which we live.
The courts have decided- for the moment- that we can own these things, and accordingly, I do.
But were one to consider them to be something other than ornamental, it behooves one to think through the consequences of ownership. I always had guns around, from my earliest days. In fact, Raven would take us to a gun shop out in Pontiac as a treat on the weekends. The proprietor had a barrel of war surplus rifles of exotic calibers that made them essentially useless except for decoration.
Dad let us buy them, take them apart, put them back together and play with them. No ammunition, of course. But consider what the consequences would be today if you saw ten-year-olds running around with real guns in the neighborhood playing Capture the Flag?
There was an old Springfield rolling block rifle that dated to the Civil War, along with some other family blunderbusses more than a century old. I took the Springfield to school for show-and-tell one time, without incurring a Mark in my Permanent Record.
That permanent record later included a few decades with one of the larger armed gangs on the planet, bristling with not only firearms, but rockets and bombs of all the types.
Yeah, I know. A long time ago, and a different sort of country. And because it is a different sort of country, a lot of people are armed to the teeth in preparation for the unimaginable, and applying for permits to carry pistols in many states which previously did not permit it for most law-abiding citizens.
Anyway, that got off onto a heated exchange about training and personal rules of engagement.
That was an illuminating conversation. One pal opined that a useful training exercise is to go to a supervised range and have them turn off the lights, pick up a flashlight and remove your hearing protection and see what it is like to fire a pistol in an enclosed space with a muzzle flash that destroys night vision. Disorienting is the most polite way to describe it.
That led to a discussion of what you would do if you needed to do something. The consensus was that any use of a firearm is going to be a problem. One pal submitted the problematic nature of the law. Naturally, this case is from Massachusetts, which is a unique large-scale asylum, but it is relevant to the discussion.
(F. Lee Baily in his prime. He was a remarkable lawyer.)
Legendary trial lawyer F. Lee Baily was called to argue the defense of a woman
who was charged with murder because a man broke into her house with a knife and attacked her and her two kids. She ran with the kids into the kitchen and there stabbed the man, who died.
The prosecution’s argument was that because she did not use every means to escape, her attack on the man constituted murder, since she could have used the kitchen door to escape with her kids. She was found guilty.
We went back and forth on “Stand Your Ground” laws and the continuing debate on whether you really have the right to defend yourself.
F. Lee Baily’s assessment of it was this:
“If someone breaks into your house back into a room from which there is no exit” – he preferred a large closet – “and when the man approaches yell at him so that he turns and faces you – shoot him and make certain he is dead. When the cops arrive tell them you can’t really talk, you
are badly shaken up, that you were in fear for your life, and request a lawyer.”
“The defense would be: you tried to escape, you were scared, you backed into a corner and trapped yourself, and then you shot him.’ Even if the authorities think otherwise, they will find it virtually impossible to prove in court.”
That at least was Bailey’s argument. Don’t consider the warning shot as an air-tight deterrence, by the way. A lot of places are making that illegal, despite what the Vice President says.
The whole thing makes you a little queasy, you know?
Copyright 2014 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com
Twitter: @jayare303