This is Part II – a continuation of an earlier post:

• This one wasn’t really a question, but a statement, and one which really made me think and wonder what I would do: “As a father, and a good parent, I’d shoot any intruder dead before the cops came.” (From Opinionated Man)
  • Would I, if I owned a gun, “shoot any intruder … “? After some considerable thought, I concluded that no, I would not, for two reasons:
    • First, if I owned a gun, it would be unloaded and locked in a box in the bottom of my bedroom closet on the second floor of my house. Thus, the only way I would be able to shoot an intruder would be if he were willing to cooperate when I asked him to “stay right there for just a few minutes” while I go upstairs, find and unlock the box, load the gun, then return downstairs. Somehow I don’t think that would work.
    • Second, and this is purely speculative, as I do not believe any of us can know precisely what we would do in a traumatic situation until it arises, but I do not believe I would be capable of willfully and knowingly taking another life. That does not mean that I wouldn’t maim him … I wield a mean butcher knife which I keep quite sharp … I can envision me biting, kicking, punching, but not shooting.  I am basically a wordsmith, so I would probably, given half a chance, try to negotiate (step up on my soapbox and talk him to death!).  If he wanted money, I would give him the entire $40 I might have in my home.  Television, computers?  Sure … take them.  But no, I would not shoot somebody just to keep my electronics.  At least, I don’t think I would.

• And again, more a statement, but with a question at the core: “Personally I am more concerned about the desensitization (defined as the diminished emotional responsiveness to a negative or aversive stimulus after repeated exposure to it) of our youth and other impressionable people toward the value of human life. Perhaps the doctors should be asking if we own certain video games or view particular types of motion pictures or TV programs. I recently had a friend tell me that he plays Grand Theft Auto regularly with his preteen son and hasn’t seen any negative effect on the boy’s behavior. A future conversation might well be, “he was always such a good, quiet kid. I don’t know why he snapped like that, stole my gun and took out those two guys who had been bullying him.” (From Rixlibris)
  • The original post was in reference to young children, of an age to be under the care of a pediatrician, so I am thinking under age 14, and I was not considering teens at that point. But Rixlibris brings up a valid point.  Today it seems that kids are much more interested in playing video games and watching television than climbing trees and catching frogs (I am showing my age here, I suppose).  And yes, while there are a lot of fun, challenging and relatively non-violent games and programs, there are also many that glorify fighting and even killing. thus desensitizing our youth.  (It has been argued that so did Road Runner/Wiley Coyote cartoons). At any rate, I agree with rixlibris to the extent that un-or-under-supervised teens potentially leads to cases such as Columbine (April 20, 1999).  I do not think the doctor can realistically, in the time span of an office visit, ask about every potential hazard. And nobody can possibly foresee every possible hazard … if we could, none of us would own scissors, steak knives, or belts, and we would not store bleach or other chemicals in the home.  Almost anything can become a weapon.  But I do think that certain games and programs simply do not need to exist, for example the game mentioned by rixlibris, Grand Theft Auto.  While I have never seen this game being played, I have read a number of articles about it (I do have grandchildren, so I do my homework about these things) and am given to understand that it is extremely violent and teaches disrespect of law enforcement.  However, to ban such games or violent programs, would violate our 1^st amendment, the right to free speech (or at least the current interpretations of it), thus we have come full circle and it is back in the parents’ court to monitor, supervise, advise, and ultimately guide their children. I realize this does not answer the question, but if there is an answer, it is beyond the scope of both my mind and this post.  All I am able to do is offer my thoughts, my opinion.

I understand that the 2^nd amendment is here to stay.  I also understand that the current interpretation of the 2^nd amendment is broader in scope than was initially intended, but that will not change either.  I accept this, though I do not accept the freedom of individuals to own guns entirely without regulation.  I hear that “guns in the hands of ‘law-abiding’ citizens make us safer”.  I do not agree with that, and as I have said before, every person is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law, so that is a moving target. It is a tired but true statement that we must pass both a written and a practical skills test in order to be licensed to drive a car, while we only have to be somewhat free of a criminal past in order to be licensed to shoot a weapon that has the potential to be more lethal to a larger number of people.  I have and will continue to advocate for stricter gun regulations.

I do not own a gun because I know myself.  I know that, while generally a calm person, I do have a temper and when it flares, look out.  A few weeks ago, a driver almost hit me in a crowded parking lot because she was too busy talking on her cell phone, cutting across aisles, to notice me.  If a loaded gun had been in reach, might I have used it?  I cannot say for certain, but I acknowledge the possibility.  Last summer, the lady across the street accidentally set off her car alarm and could not figure out how to turn it off for several minutes.  I did threaten to turn it off with a sledge hammer … if I had access to a loaded gun, might I have used it at that moment?  Again, who knows, but the fact that I have to answer “maybe” is enough to convince me that I do not need to own a gun.

I have, admittedly, never found myself in a situation that I could not handle with the tools available to me at the time (usually words – talk ‘em to death!).  If I ever do, perhaps I will view the whole gun-ownership issue differently.  I simply do not know.  I have many friends who own guns, I believe they are responsible gun owners, and I respect their rights just as they respect my right to ask them to leave their guns at home when they visit me.  If I felt I needed protection at home, I would go to a local shelter and get a dog!

I recently wrote a post concerning 2^nd amendment rights and whether pediatricians should be able to ask parents of young children whether there are guns in the home.  I won’t go into detail, but if you missed it, you can read it here.  In a comment, a couple of fellow bloggers asked questions that I needed some time to think about before responding, so I promised to address those questions in a later post.  Also, there were a few comments that, after I had time to mull it over, I wanted to respond more in depth. So this is that “later post”.   (Note:  by the time I finished writing this, it was well over 2,000 words.  Since I generally try to keep my posts between 800-1,200 words for readability, I am splitting this into two posts.)

While I may not have realized the full extent to which any discussion of gun rights or gun regulation are a highly controversial topic, I do realize it now, and as such I will try to choose my words more carefully than in my original Glocks vs Docs post.  That does not mean I have changed my stance, but I will try to express myself honestly, yet more carefully.

• “I have to ask is there anything that “counters” that tragedy in your mind (a child being killed by a careless gun owner)? Such as the story a month ago about a teenager using her father’s handgun to kill an intruder? Is that not a balance to you or is that still tragic?” (From Opinionated Man )
  • My late-night, off-the-cuff remark to OM on this one was “Briefly, no, I don’t think one cancels out the other. The child is still dead, and now another person is also.” I think that even with a few days to think, to consider, I stand by my original answer.  Nothing will bring that child back to life, and the teenager who killed the intruder with her father’s gun?  That is yet another tragedy. Her life is forever changed.  Can you imagine the effect that would have on a mind and emotions that are not yet fully developed, not fully prepared for that weight on her shoulders?  It would not surprise me for that teenager to commit suicide within a matter of years, or at the very least need long-term psychiatric care. And … what if the intruder was not, in fact, an intruder?  I imagine that in this case it was, but “what if”?  What if it was a sibling, parent, or other family member arriving home unexpectedly?  What if it was an inebriated neighbor or otherwise confused person who mistakenly got the wrong house?  (I have actually had this happen more than once!).  No, there are just too many variables, and as I said in the beginning, how can one cancel the other out, when the child is still dead and now another human being is also?  Yes, I have been called a “bleeding hearts liberal” more times than I can count on all fingers and toes, but it is who I am, and I am okay with that.

• “I would be willing to bet that drugs and alcohol play a bigger role in harming children and teens than accidental shootings. So perhaps it would be more relevant to ask if you have “drugs and/or alcohol” in the house? Would you be okay if your pediatrician asked you that question? Would you be okay if your pediatrician “had issues” or “vilified” you as a parent if you chose to indulge in either?” (From Just Plain Ol’ Vic)
  • This one is more troublesome, more difficult to answer than the others. Yes, I absolutely agree that drugs and alcohol play the biggest role in teen deaths, damage to teen’s emotional balance, destruction of families, etc.  And while I hope that drugs are not a common item in most households (perhaps I am naïve?), alcohol is certainly present in a large number of households, including my own.  To the question of whether I would “be okay” if a pediatrician asked if I had drugs or alcohol in my home, I am sure I would be a bit taken aback, yes.  And yes, I think I would be offended.  Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite, since I think it is okay for that same pediatrician to ask about guns in the home.  Which could lead to a fairly in-depth discussion that neither time nor space allow for here or today.
  • As to whether I would be okay if the afore-mentioned pediatrician “vilified” or “had issues” with me keeping a bottle of wine in the cabinet, I can definitely answer that no, I would not! But … that pediatrician who was asking about guns in the home was not, presumably, either vilifying or condemning, but simply asking and offering safety tips.  So, if said pediatrician then asks me how much wine I drink, I would remind him that I am not, in fact, his patient and his question is out of bounds.  However, if he reminded me to keep alcohol out of the reach of my toddler, I would not be offended.

(Part II to follow soon … )