I Own The World
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Consider this a two part opinion essay on the issue of guns in
I believe - though I do not know - that most people who own guns do not own them for defense purposes. I think they may use the defense argument to justify ownership of guns, but most who own guns probably own them for another reason other than a need to have a gun for defense purposes. I think it would be interesting to get into the heads of the "self-defense" gun people and find out what the real reason for their wanting to own guns is, but from where I stand, I remain unconvinced that most lovers of guns love them for reasons of self-defense.
It may sound whacky - and it probably would for most gun loving people - but I think the real reason why most "self-defense" gun lovers want to own guns is just that - for a love of guns. Various people love various things in this life, I think, and many - though not all - people who own guns just happen to have a love affair with a gun - or guns. But what do you do with a gun? You shoot things with it - maybe a cardboard target in the distance, maybe a deer in the woods, or maybe another human being. Regardless of what is the target, though, I think most law-abiding gun owners own guns because of a love for them - not for the reason they often state - to be able to defend themselves in the case of attack.
Just take the recent event about the school shootings in
Love is a very difficult thing to try to regulate - and when you have a very significant number of a population in love with anything, unless a government is a dictatorship, it is unlikely that such a love can be restricted. I suppose a society could do that - act to suppress a given love - but a free society should not - in spite of a perceived overall danger of that love. I would not want someone else to try and outlaw my own personal love for this or that. So, it should not be for me to try and outlaw his - or her - particular love. That is the way I see it.
Personally, I do not love guns. I feel I have no need for guns - or even a single gun. I am not defense minded at the moment, though as I admitted to a friend, Lee, in discussion about this issue recently - I might become defense oriented if actually threatened by someone. I do not know what I would do if I was threatened for sure, however I hope my principle of peace at all times would urge me to try to talk my way out of a jam with a potential threatening person - or if I could not do that, I hope that I would, in a way, surrender without a fight - should someone actually come to me and point a gun in my face with intent to maim or kill. To fight back with intent to permanently injure another would be to interrupt my own soulful peace; and I regard my soul much too highly to knowingly disrupt its peace.
I think that is why Jesus did not fight his assailants either. Some would argue that Jesus was a coward in not fighting back. I think Jesus was a hero by maintaining his own secured peace by refusing to become his own enemy by intentionally hurting another person - be it justified or not.
No one knows for sure, though, what one would do in the case of real threat. Given a couple of instances in my past, however, when confronted by someone willing to do me harm, I did not give up. In one instance, I flatly trounced my rascal opponent. I won't go into details; but suffice it to say I might not go without a struggle.
But being unwilling to go without struggle is a far cry from planning on a struggle. I think I would be very unwise to prepare my house and home for struggle in the event of struggle. Why? Because I think I would significantly increase the chance of my having a struggle with someone in the end. If I learn a skill, then there is a much better chance I will end up using that skill than if I had not attained that skill in the first place. So for not wanting to use being skillful with a gun, personally I choose not to own a gun or have anything to do with a gun.
Sadly, however, I think a lot of gun owners eventually run into trouble for being prepared for it. For their love of a gun in the first place, they want to justify their love; and then terrible things often happen. I doubt that Nancy Lanza anticipated that her son, Adam, would eventually use her "toy for target practice" on many innocent kids & teachers in an unprotected school; but it happened. Didn't it? Maybe
So, where is this little commentary going? It is only to try and define some real issues that I see. Personally, I think it is literally stupid to wear a gun and holster and go into the public with it - under some pretense that if I am needed, I will be ready with a gun to shoot the would be bad guy; but my stupidity is another person's choice of wise behavior. It is not for me to try and regulate behavior. It is only for me to offer opinion as to what I think the real issues are.
I listened to some news item on some news show awhile ago; and some gun collector was being interviewed. This guy had an arsenal of guns in his house. When asked why he had so many guns, he was honest - he loves guns. The more guns he can own, the happier he is. Well some gun lovers would love to have an arsenal of guns simply because of a fascination with them and love for them. Others might be willing to settle for just one gun; but be it many or one, there is a good chance the owner simply has a love affair with guns - and is willing to argue he (or she) owns them for purpose of potential self-defense.
What would I say to such a person - that is one who claims to own a gun or guns for reason of self-defense? Look out! Your speculated reason may become an actual need in time - simply because you may end up experiencing what you anticipate because you set the stage for it.
I am not arguing, however, that no one should have a gun. Indeed, lawful policemen and policewomen should have them - but, in my opinion, assault type guns should be restricted to them. The rest of us should have no need for them, but I will be making a suggestion in the second part of this essay on how true "self-defense" minded regular citizens can "arm" themselves - if they choose to need such.
In general, though, I disagree with those who maintain that citizens should be armed in the event of having to defend themselves against some potential enemy - even if that enemy is a national or governmental tyranny. Look! If my government becomes my tyrant, then I guess I will need to look for another government. In the meantime, I'll not waste my time and soul by acting a militant.
Now for the second part of my commentary on guns. I offer this as a suggestion, realizing that no resolution can be failsafe. Any measure I take to protect myself or another may fail in the end, but I think at least partly, the following could resolve much of our current obsession for the need of guns for self-defense.
Consider for a moment that I sense an intruder in my home. I am coming home from a night out and I sense something is not right. Someone is in my home. Rather than reaching for a regular gun, consider my having access to another type of gun - of tear gas character. Before going into my home, I withdraw my tear gas gun from my vehicle and cautiously enter my home. If someone is really inside, I point my tear gas pistol at him and fire. Then I call the police on my cell phone - and more than likely my would be assailant might have been immobilized - and I would not have had to kill him.
Assume another instance. I am a lady and I sense I am being followed. First, I reach into my purse, take out my tear gas pistol and shoot that rascal. Then I call 911 and report my fear of being assaulted. Maybe this guy will turn out to be innocent, but then maybe he was out to do me no good too. In any case, I will have had some protection and I will not have had to compromise my peaceful minded disposition. A little tear gas might go a long way to disarm a would be assailant. By the time he has cleared his eyes and can see again, I am out of there.
Now, assume it is a school room like
Imagine there is a shooter on top of a building spraying real bullets all about. I am only a citizen seeing the whole thing. I reach into my car, grab my tear gas rifle, aim it at the real rifleman and press the trigger. It hits the sniper and explodes, causing the sniper to be enveloped in tear gas. The guy could not then aim at anyone and the police could be called to dismantle the scoundrel before he can come to his senses.
I am a lady asleep in my room. My husband has been out for the evening and has been expected to return much later than it is now. I sense someone is in the house - or even in my room. I know where I stashed that tear gas pistol beside my bed. I reach over, open the drawer, pull out my tear gas pistol and shoot in the direction of my suspected assailant. My husband then wails about what the hell am I doing. It is only him; but if it was not only him, I might be somewhat safe while I dial 911 and report an emergency.
I am only arguing here that for those truly concerned about "self-defense," it is possible to manufacture other kinds of fire arms - fire arms that do not kill or even maim. Of course, there are some tear gas products out there now; but if we are so concerned about our own self-defense, perhaps we should consider manufacturing tear gas pistols that can be easily contained in pocket or purse and tear gas rifles that can be used for longer range purposes.
How about it, Smith & Wesson - or other gun manufacturers? How about adding the manufacturing of a variety of tear gas pistols, rifles, pellets, and companion gas masks to your regular manufacture of lethal guns? The market should be wide open for such, I would think. You could make a mint and decrease the ranks of the unemployed by a good number by adding "safe guns" to your production agenda. Again, how about it?
Of course, there would be quite a few false alarms if such were done because if lots of people had tear gas guns, they might be used indiscriminately - maybe even just for fun; however, some of us who resist regular guns for their intended purpose of violence could arm ourselves with them, knowing use of them would not likely permanently injure another; and those of you who insist on taking down an assailant before he or she can take you down might find them a mighty handy alternative to a regular gun - and a whole lot safer and much less risky. As I argued, with a tear gas gun, one could shoot first and ask questions later, but with a regular gun, dead is dead - and the one who has been killed may not have been who he was thought to be.
Just Imagine the possibility - or possibilities. OK? I will let it go at that.
I OWN THE WORLD!
By
Francis William Bessler
I own the world -
and I don't need a gun.
I'm one with the moon
and I'm one with the sun.
No one on Earth is
having more fun.
I own the world -
and I don't need a gun.
I'm one with the squirrels
and I'm one with the birds.
The rabbits and I
love the same world.
None of us possess a thing
but we all own it all
Being one with it
is just having a ball.
I own the world -
and I don't need a gun.
Bullets and rifles
appeal to me none.
Just let me be free
and with the wind run.
I own the world -
and I don't need a gun.
As it is with me,
it can be for you.
You need fear no one
to see your life through.
You can have it all
knowing Life itself is the Truth.
It only depends
upon your attitude.
You own the world -
and you don't need a gun
to stand tall
and know your God's son.
We are all the same -
each and everyone.
You own the world -
and you don't need a gun.
Until next time, Adieu!
Your Bella Vita host,
Will Bessler
(Francis William Bessler)