There was a video that circulated around the internet a little while back, when the assault rifle ban was being pushed, that showed an officer worker, clearly irate and dangerously angry, storm into his office. He levels a rifle at what is projected to be his boss, fires his weapon, and misses.
He has carried a 1700s fire arm into a modern office complex and attempted to kill his boss; yet he has only one shot, and once he determines he has missed his intended target he begins reloading. As he takes the half-minute to reload everyone in the office rushes passed him and escapes the office, as this happens a voice, or words across the screen, I cannot remember which, says, “guns have changed since then, shouldn’t our gun laws?”
I admit that the video was well done, and made its statement simply and effectively. But let me explain why it is still wrong to think that gun laws should be tighter due to advancements in technology. Then I will explain one more thing that bothers me about the video.
In truth all you have to do is reverse the question, directed toward the 2nd amendment’s purpose, and not the public’s perceived purpose for gun rights (hunting/sport shooting). You could show an image of a modern military unit rolling through a forest or through the streets of a major city, depict them opening fire on a small group of men carrying 1800s era rifles or show that military unit conducting a search mission through an apartment complex where the civilians are attempting to defend themselves with an old 1800’s mortar cannon, then run the words, “militaries have changed since then, shouldn’t our personal defense?”
Gun violence has come up pretty consistently in the past few months, particularly with the Zimmerman case. I have heard the question, “why did he need a gun? The boy would be alive if he (Zimmerman) hadn’t had a gun!” When in actuality, at least by the accounts given in court, Mr. Martin would probably still be alive had he not attacked Mr. Zimmerman, and seeing his gun, attempted to reach for it and take it from him. We will not know if the young man meant to simply remove the weapon from play, but it seems unlikely due to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman had not drawn his, according to reports, weapon until his assailant tried to take it from him.
The fact is, Mr. Martin would be alive today if he had not attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman was basically accused of murder for defending himself. Even though we have upheld the rights of a citizen to arm himself and defend himself, society somehow finds fault with a man for defense.
The true purpose of an armed society is defense. Defense from criminal intent, defense from injustice or nature, and defense from tyranny. It is undeniable that there are indirect results that come from having an armed society, perhaps there are very many unfortunate unforeseen consequences. Yet perhaps our society would be a little more polite, knowing that the gentleman dropping his kids off at school is almost certainly armed. It is a shame to see young men dying from wounds caused by fire arms, but it is not worth throwing away our last personal defense of liberty and property or the ability of all law abiding citizens to be near equal in their personal defense.
Lastly, what concerns me even more about the video; once the angry officer worker had discharged his weapon, why did everyone, man and woman, run away? The two points are connected, if you take away a culture of self-defense, the muscle of appropriate reaction to emergency atrophies and falls away, till even your big strong men run away in terror when they should be charging the opponent at the moment of opportunity!
Remove someone’s responsibility for their own self defense, and you remove their responsibility toward everything and in the end they will feel no responsibility to defend their society or their nation.