Remember this??? Well, I got carried away today at lunch and dropped this to the editor. I thought some of you might use one or two of the points elsewhere so this is shared in that spirit. See below ...
--
Bruce L. Jones
The Desert Hostage
The Mojave Desert - The Geographic Center of Nowhere
9 March 2000
To: editor@sunpub.com
To whomever it may concern:
I am writing with regard to the article by Michael Coren dated March 2, 2000 and titled "It's Not Guns We Must Control".
By way of introduction I would like to share that in my official position I am regarded as one of the world's foremost authorities on weapons of all kinds, their uses, and the laws governing them. I have spent a lifetime in study and in the acquisition of this knowledge. Therefore, it is without trepidation that I state that this article, with the exception of the first paragraph, is absolutely correct. I will not inundate you with reams of facts. Suffice it to say that those facts, figures and statistics do, indeed, exist. Instead I will discuss my personal expert knowledge.
I would like to briefly comment on that first paragraph. In it, Mr. Coren states, "I hate guns. They terrify me. I have never owned one and never will. I have little sympathy for the gun culture or the gun lobby. Both seem crass and crude. If I had my way, guns would not exist." Perhaps one could take the time to gently inform Mr. Coren of the baseless nature of his stated fear and loathing and the equally absolute misunderstanding he has of the nature, purpose and use of guns; actually weapons. Mr. Coren's current feelings actually serve to do nothing less sinister than supporting murders, kidnappers, rapists and other violent felons. He finishes this paragraph with the equally accurate, ". . . we do not live in a perfect world and I am prepared to admit that reality sometimes stings." I will now illustrate how this also applies to his fear - hoplophobia - concerning "guns".
It is a fact as equally known as those Mr. Coren states in his article that since the dawn of pre-human history, humankind has used violence for individual gain. Even other present day primates use violence; including murder, rape and protection rackets, to align and codify power structures in their societies. Primitive man (really pre-man) used crude manual power, just as modern apes do, to wield his power. The power and influence went to the biggest biceps and greatest aggression. Protection from this violence was only provided by equally strong and aggressive young males.
This condition continued unabated throughout the entire human history of the use and parallel development of society and weapons. Humankind went from using rocks and sticks, to sharpened sticks, to stone and flaked flint edges, to metal tipped spears and finally, swords. All of these things had one characteristic in common. They were all only as effective as the youthful strength and aggression of their users. Again, protection from their effects were also only provided by an equivalent degree of strength and aggressiveness.
All of human history is one long litany of one aggressor conquering another less successful aggressor. Usually, the less successful aggressor was eventually disarmed of their weapons and then enslaved and/or slaughtered (or, in some cases, both). Our own history in the West, and especially the common history of both the United States and Canada, has one example after another of an aggressive power wielder overpowering and disarming the wider population for the purpose of controlling them. This history is what led the developers of the Constitutional structure of the U.S. to sanctify the forbidden nature of disarmament; to ultimately guarantee the individual freedom of each person, regardless of any government that may ever exist. Those who understand and support this concept are the lovers of free men. It has little to do with actual "guns". Guns are only the latest in a long line of weapons used to ensure the freedom of their owners.
To understand this more fully, it is only necessary to examine the world's past great societies. Without an exception that comes to mind, every glorious flowering of human culture and science has occurred under the protective umbrella of the most powerful military machines of their respective day. From the ancient flowers of Crete, Babylon, China and Japan to Greece and Rome, to the more modern contributions of the United Kingdom, France and the United States, each has achieved great strides in medicine, the arts and science. This was made possible because the creators were protected; protected by aggressive men with weapons. It is equally easy to see how each society declined when those same weapons and aggression lost favor with their respective - albeit misguided - intelligentsia.
Now, we are debating this issue of weapons, so often debated throughout history. When it was first invented, the crossbow was as feared and despised as guns are today by the meek. Then, as now, they would rather try to ban them than understand and use them. The great advantage today is that there is simply no more effective tool any single citizen can use to protect his own life, or that of his family or property than a gun. The invention of guns forever removed the possession of power from only the young, physically strong males. Meeker men, women and older people can now have as much power at their disposal to provide for their own protection as any young, strong thug, thus making a personally owned gun the hallmark of individual freedom and safety.
Some would-be banners of this hallmark of personal safety have attempted to use trumped up studies with cooked data to show - falsely - that the owner of a weapon is more likely to be injured than an attacker. This is patently absurd in-and-of itself. My nearly forty years of personal experience with tens of thousands of guns and their users have absolutely demonstrated the fallacy of that as utter nonsense. Overwhelmingly, an individual, especially a woman or elderly person, is remarkably safer if they own - and especially if they carry with them at all times - a gun for personal protection. For example, crimes against women would all but cease overnight if all women were so armed. The only loss would be to the personal safety of rapists and murderers. The evidence is overwhelming that there would be a lot less crime if more citizens were armed.
The media, for their part, has contributed little to this issue but manufactured hysteria. There is a current feeding frenzy in both our respective countries concerning the drama of violence that far overshadows the actual import of the events. The citizenry, for their part, encourage this circus with their rapt attention to the over-dramatization of it. Politicians have played on this hysteria to make an issue they could appear to "fight" for, making themselves champions against a hugely mis-perceived issue. Absent this manufactured issue of "gun violence", there would be little or nothing to distinguish between them, all of it bland. Most of them merely regurgitate what appears in print, finding little incentive or courage to discover actual facts.
The facts are as plain and simple as the examples in Mr. Coren's article. Millions of Americans living in rural areas and in the Western cities have always known where their best protection was. It is in their own hands, if the hands are holding a gun. The murders so sensationalized in the media are rare except among violence-prone youths. That is a group so insular that it will not touch most lives. The biggest concern to citizens should be protecting themselves against professional thieves and other criminals. The facts do show that millions of Americans do just that every year using their own personally owned guns, about two and a half million times a year. This hugely overshadows the comparatively minuscule thirteen thousand murders each year committed with guns (and most of them are criminals killing other criminals).
The wider offices of the United States Government, for their part, know exactly what the truth is, but are not allowed to publicize or pursue it by the politics and policies of the current administration. For a really enlightening view of the wider issue, I would advise everyone to read a report published by the United States Senate in February of 1982, titled "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary; United States Senate; Ninety-Seventh Congress; Second Session." It was and remains a scholarly study of the history and facts of the issue.
Mr. Coren, for all his good intentions, has fallen into the same propagandist's trap as the politicians and others. His fears are baseless and misguided, manufactured by a long history of hysterical journalism. He should, if he wished to make himself and his surroundings safe from violence, acquired his first gun and learn how to use it responsibly as millions of Americans have. Then he too would perhaps begin to understand that there is no such thing as a "gun lobby". There is a lobby alright, but it is a lobby for the continuing safety and freedom of our citizens. Guns are only the current tool to achieve and assure that end.
Regards,
Bruce L. Jones
Program Manager Infantry Weapons
U.S. Marine Corps - Pacific Theater