I don't post a diary often. There's a reason for that, and it relates directly with the rancor that boils over on certain issues. I'm sure that will be true of this diary, too, and I'll end up regretting it; but after seething for three days over the Zimmerman verdict, I can't ignore the compulsion to say something about guns that is ignored by both sides of the political argument:
Every right carries with it a responsibility.
Every right, no matter how fundamental or elementally human, must be fully and naturally counter-balanced by a responsibility of equal weight.
The right to free speech isn't unfettered. I cannot yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - in other words, I can't create a danger to another person's well-being with my words. Neither can you. Likewise, my right to freely practice a religion doesn't allow me to throw virgins into a volcano.
A "right," separated from responsibility, transforms into a privilege. Once we begin to conflate privilege with rights, we are surely lost. So it is with guns.
Our experiences shape our thinking and perception. So, let me tell you a couple of things about my experiences that you should know before proceeding.
First, as a sort of disclaimer, I own the kind of weapons that are central to the political debate over guns. Two handguns: a 9mm semi-automatic with a magazine capacity of 17 rounds plus one in the chamber; and a 38 Special Snub-nose revolver. I own an assault-style rifle, chambered in 5.56/223, along with several 20-round magazines and a pair of 30-round mags. Finally, I own a semi-auto shotgun with a loaded capacity of 7 shells (6 in the tube, 1 in the chamber.)
They are for recreational, competitive shooting. They are for fun. And, they all sit in a locked safe, unloaded. The only time ammunition meets weapon is on the range.
If you break into my house, my primary line of defense will be the sound of urgent words being spoken to a 911 operator. From a statistical standpoint, a home invasion sits somewhere between my house being leveled by a tornado and struck by a meteorite. I won't keep a dangerous weapon at the ready in order to meet a threat that is nebulous at best, and virtually nonexistent in the real world. (I don't insist you see this my way or agree with me. Believe what you will. Keep your loaded gun in the nightstand so you are ready to protect yourself against whatever threat you think the world holds for you. But don't tell me I'm unAmerican because I reject your calculation.)
Now, I will tell you something else about my experiences that absolutely shape my perception: 32 years ago, at the age of 24, I carried a concealed weapon (with a permit), every day, for a period of about ten months.
I got rid of it for the simplest reason of all - it made me a danger to myself. And, because I carried a gun, if I placed myself in danger, I was also placing others in danger. Once I recognized the progression of unintended consequences that was taking place in my psyche, I quit carrying the gun and turned in my CWP.
What I began to realize (not in some flash of inspired, enlightened insight, but simply as a matter of collecting new memories, LOL), was that in situations I would have - sans gun - talked my way out of, or avoided altogether; I was, instead, inclined to aggressively wade into the middle of - because I was carrying the weapon.
Circling back to where I began, my right to keep and bear arms transformed into a dangerous privilege the moment it began to affect my judgement and behavior. It made me feel invincible. In the words of a police officer friend at the time: "You have big ball syndrome, buddy. Better cure it before it kills you or somebody else."
Like all rights, the perimeter was defined when it came in conflict with the rights of others. I realized that the people around me had a right to breathe, and that given my reaction to carrying a gun, my right to keep and bear arms could easily come in conflict with their right to be alive.
The truth is, much as I hate to admit it, I understand George Zimmerman. He also grew testicles the size of basketballs because he had a weapon on his person. The difference is this: I got lucky and saw what it was doing to my behavior before it affected any lives. He didn't.
No amount of legal argumentation, jury findings or self-justification will ever erase the fact that George Zimmerman's "big ball syndrome" led him to engage in aggressive behavior that CREATED the very danger he says he was "forced" to defend himself against.
I look at the tragic chain of events as a nearly-Kafkaesque cause-and-effect scenario: Zimmerman transformed passive observation into active pursuit because he felt emboldened and empowered by his weapon. Trayvon Martin reacted to the threat of Zimmerman's pursuit with both flight...and fight. Zimmerman escalated. Trayvon escalated. Zimmerman got in over his head. Trayvon ended up dead.
Would Trayvon Martin have assaulted Zimmerman without the provocation of being stalked? Not even the most zealous advocate of using deadly force in self-defense circumstances can make a coherent argument that Trayvon was seeking a fight the evening of his killing.
Without the gun in the equation, it seems obvious the whole tragic chain would have been broken. Sure, Zimmerman might have followed his "suspect" in his vehicle. Kept eyes on him. He would have been guilty of profiling, and his judgement would not have been any better. However, maybe, if he had kept his distance, Zimmerman might have seen Trayvon walk into a residence through the front door - and perhaps even come to the realization that his "suspect" did, in fact, "belong there."
Subtract the "copper courage" of his pistol, I don't see any indication that Zimmerman would have exited his vehicle…followed on foot…set up a confrontation.
At the core of the arguments over gun rights is the need to discuss the counter-weight of responsibility. That means every gun owner needs to understand the deadly weapon they own. They need to assess their own reactions to owning it, to examine their own attitudes and beliefs.
And, gun owners need to stop supporting irresponsible gun owners who apply deadly force in a negligent manner.
We need to reject the NRA "solution" - which taken to it's logical conclusion would have turned Trayvon Martin's shooting into a shootout between two weapon-toting citizens who each "stood their ground" against a threat either individual could have easily perceived in the circumstances.
Until gun owners make that happen, Americans will continue to yell, pointlessly, at each other from opposite sides of the gun debate.
And, we will continue to weep.