rantingredneck
New member
We (meaning pro-2A types) have for too long allowed the anti's to define the terms of the debate over firearms. We've allowed guns to be demonized and irrationally defined as having a will of their own. We've allowed the culture as a whole to excuse the behavior of the individual wielding the weapon through reference to mental illness, socioeconomic status, cultural influences, etc. By doing so we have also bypassed the essential question we should be asking. What is the armed individual's intent? When I say intent I'm referring to the broader more general definition than the more specific legal definition of mens rea.
Intent is a powerful thing. If someone intends to do you harm, they will find a way to do it. Whether it's a firearm, blunt instrument, knife, poison or the rope that Col. Mustard used in the billiard room to kill Mr. Body, they will find a way. Guns may be one of the more efficient tools to carry out that intent, but as we've seen in other countries recently that have enacted total bans on civilian firearm ownership they are not the only tool. Humans have been murdering other humans since the dawn of man. Well before gunpowder was even a thought.
What does the armed individual intend? Now of course we cannot peek into our crystal ball and discover intent. NICS does not collect data on an individual's intent, though it tracks set behavioral patterns (or their results) to attempt to gauge intent and bar those who supposedly have ill intent from purchasing weapons. Where it fails, though is when an individual's intent changes from benign to diabolical, (i.e. when a formerly law abiding citizen decides to use their weapon for ill intended purposes).
Now obviously intent is a hard thing to define (I'm doing a crap job of it myself here) and an even harder thing to gauge. So what can we do? The only thing I see is to balance those who are armed with ill intent (to do harm)with those who are armed with benign intent (to protect). The anti's would have us believe that police are the balance here. They are the only ones who should be armed with benign intent. Even the motto "to protect and serve" would seem to support this. However we all know that in most cases the role of police is responsive and reactive. By the time they arrive the crime is usually complete and the victim can no longer be protected. Police have their role but it cannot be as protector for all 300 million citizens. It is simply a numerical impossibility.
We've made strides toward this balance the past 15 years or so with the movement to shall issue concealed carry laws in varous states. At this point, though, it has to go further into breaking down the barriers to carry of weapons by the law abiding into the supposed "gun free" zones currently in place. This issue has been discussed quite a bit here recently, especially in light of the VT shootings earlier this week. I'm not trying to rehash that discussion.
What I am trying to do is spark discussion on how we can change the terms of this debate to get away from the guns themselves, the excuses for behavior that are bandied about (mental illness, etc.) and get the society as a whole to define the problem of crime (not just gun crime mind you) based on the intent of the individual.
Any thoughts?
/end rant
Intent is a powerful thing. If someone intends to do you harm, they will find a way to do it. Whether it's a firearm, blunt instrument, knife, poison or the rope that Col. Mustard used in the billiard room to kill Mr. Body, they will find a way. Guns may be one of the more efficient tools to carry out that intent, but as we've seen in other countries recently that have enacted total bans on civilian firearm ownership they are not the only tool. Humans have been murdering other humans since the dawn of man. Well before gunpowder was even a thought.
What does the armed individual intend? Now of course we cannot peek into our crystal ball and discover intent. NICS does not collect data on an individual's intent, though it tracks set behavioral patterns (or their results) to attempt to gauge intent and bar those who supposedly have ill intent from purchasing weapons. Where it fails, though is when an individual's intent changes from benign to diabolical, (i.e. when a formerly law abiding citizen decides to use their weapon for ill intended purposes).
Now obviously intent is a hard thing to define (I'm doing a crap job of it myself here) and an even harder thing to gauge. So what can we do? The only thing I see is to balance those who are armed with ill intent (to do harm)with those who are armed with benign intent (to protect). The anti's would have us believe that police are the balance here. They are the only ones who should be armed with benign intent. Even the motto "to protect and serve" would seem to support this. However we all know that in most cases the role of police is responsive and reactive. By the time they arrive the crime is usually complete and the victim can no longer be protected. Police have their role but it cannot be as protector for all 300 million citizens. It is simply a numerical impossibility.
We've made strides toward this balance the past 15 years or so with the movement to shall issue concealed carry laws in varous states. At this point, though, it has to go further into breaking down the barriers to carry of weapons by the law abiding into the supposed "gun free" zones currently in place. This issue has been discussed quite a bit here recently, especially in light of the VT shootings earlier this week. I'm not trying to rehash that discussion.
What I am trying to do is spark discussion on how we can change the terms of this debate to get away from the guns themselves, the excuses for behavior that are bandied about (mental illness, etc.) and get the society as a whole to define the problem of crime (not just gun crime mind you) based on the intent of the individual.
Any thoughts?
/end rant