Gun Control

There's a lot of ideology and politiking flying around since Monday, and quite honestly, I'm offended that all these people are jumping onto the political bandwagon to seek votes while the emotions are running high over the horrible slaughter at Virginia Tech.

Let me be very clear; the people who were killed and injured at Virginia Tech are not there to be poster children for politicians, and to make them out to be such is demeaning to the dignity and memory of them all, including the killer.

But since the topic is flying around, I am going to enter my own opinion, which actually has nothing to do with this event. I am "pro-gun" now and will likely remain so, but keep in mind that my position was tempered by the extensive training I have receivd.

I grew up in a household in which my mother was so terrified of guns that the very topic threw her into a complete tizzy. Her brother, my uncle, died in Korea, killed by a sniper, apparently while protecting a priest. I don't know the whole story, but we have visited his grave every year on Memorial Day to honor his memory and his sacrifice.

Imagine Mom's complete consternation when I announced I wanted to be a police officer! I think she nearly drove off the road; we were en route to visit the college I was considering for their Criminal Justice program, and her questions forced me to reveal the news although I would have chosen a safer occasion to do so.

That following summer, when I turned 18, my cousin, a part-time officer, welcomed me to his home and gave me a "dry-run" with several guns, gave me quite the involved primer on gun safety, and instilled the foundation for my education in this. He took me under his wing and really fed my career aspirations but with great cautions and of course, with great love.

Mom referred to him as a "gun nut". I wish all "gun nuts" were just like him, because if they were, the world would be a safer place. He was all about education and safety.

When we finally went out to the gravel pit, he brought along a bullet proof vest; he would not even allow me to enter the area without it, for fear of a ricochet. My cousin took his lessons very seriously and knew of my Mom's fears so he did his utmost to be sure I was returned to her in the same condition I had been when I left the house.

He taught me to shoot several types of guns, several styles, and on our third trip out, he was confidant enough in my ability to challenge my marksmanship with something he thought I might face someday; a gunman with a hostage.

He set up the cardboard cutouts with clothing to blur the lines, and set one in front of the other to mimic a gunman shielding himself with an innocent party...and he bid me to put one through this guy's head and "ruin his day."

I did as I was told, and I "ruined his day" in a major way with a Smith and Wesson .45 semi-automatic.

The primary lesson of all of this was not only experience and forcing me to face real-life situations, but when I shot the victim, he made sure I knew that, too, because the use of weapons in deadly force is not a joke. There are always consequences, and these consequences are deadly.

In skills training we spent a great deal of time at the range, and our instructor, while fond of humor, was deadly serious on the range. Even though we had heard the instructions a thousand times, he always bid us to "fire downrange!" before holstering our weapons. (.9mm glocks).

On the occasion of a night shoot at the training range, however, one individual chose to ignore his advice. He holstered his weapon, and as he did so, pulled the trigger...and the gun went off. It entered his pantleg, seared down his leg, and exited through his shoe.

He was unharmed, but for a black burn-mark down his leg, and the holes in his clothing.

He learned this lesson in a very scary way.

The school was also home to other bullet-marks in the walls, thanks to students who had disregarded classroom instruction and put everyone in a bad situation.

When I was hired as a Police Officer, I was given a Smith & Wesson .45 to carry, quite large for my hands and predictably, I had some difficulty qualifying. A few years prior I had purchased an HK .9mm, which I still own, so my duty weapon was very different and took some adjustment. The Range Instructor felt that I was a good shot, however the qualification took awhile and the department's standards were far higher than the school's standards. As it should be, for Police Officers are charged with making that ultimate decision; to take life or not to take life.

I was amazed by the ignorance of my friends (non-law enforcement) while I went through training, for they often offered the suggestion to "shoot to maim, not kill".

I have to be very clear on this issue; there is NEVER a reason to point a gun towards another human being unless you intend to kill him.

That is why the use of a gun in any situation constitutes "use of deadly force", which in the Minnesota State Statutes is Criminal Code 609.066.

Deadly force is a big deal, and the situation had better warrent such use. Someone may intend to shoot a leg or an arm, and strike the heart. A shooting situation involves a human being who may have run for blocks, may have leapt over fences, may be shaking with adrenalin...and that shot may not be true and kill the person they only want to stop. There is no such thing as "shoot to maim."

When I lived in Mexico, I became acquainted with a man who was an ex-cop. I had observed that, in Mexico, at museums, at tourist affairs, at government buildings, and literally everywhere we went, the cops were carrying sawed-off shotguns and fully-automatic weapons. I asked this man why, and he serenly replied, "It's for shooting into crowds so we can kill more people."

God. Bless. America.

We do not shoot into crowds here. As depraved as our society happens to be, we still hold, collectively, some shred of value for life.

I am no longer a cop nor do I ever plan to revisit that part of my life in any way other than through memory or writing of the lessons learned.

However, I am a woman, and I am a trained woman, and I fully believe in my right to own a weapon for the purpose of self-defense.

When I lived in south Minneapolis, I kept a loaded gun close by because I worked nights and I was well aware that most burglaries take place in the daytime. Because I had nowhere to go if someone were to enter our home, I planned to be prepared.

I still have my gun although I live in a more secure area now, however, if someone enters my home and comes up my stairs at 3 am, he gets one warning if he's lucky (if there's time), and then he will be entrusted to the Lord's Judgment. I reserve the right to defend my own honor because there is no one else to do it for me.

I have heard the arguments stemming from the wording of the Constitution with regard to the 2nd Amendment; that it pertains to a trained militia.

Fine. I'm a trained militia of one woman. Do not enter unbidden or I will consider it to be a hostile takeover and I. Will. Take. You. Out. Period.

In all seriousness, the concept about a "trained militia" having the only access is a great ideology and if our country and culture had developed differently, I would agree, but I must say that we live in the real world, not one that we would like to be real. Thus we must deal with this on real terms.

The reality is that guns are readily available in our culture and if they forbidden to the average citizen, the criminals would be empowered, forcing the good citizens into the black market to obtain weapons for themselves, for Americans are not going to be cowed by legislation that usurps their right to defend their families.

In other countries that have stringent gun laws, (ie the Netherlands)their murder rates are only slightly lower...for very little has to do with guns, but most has to do with premeditation for the murders are committed in closer quarters with knives and other weapons.

"Gun control" is not the solution to violence.

Respect for life IS a solution. Education in gun handling is a solution, and enabling the average citizen to learn to handle guns and the appropriate use of and consequences of them IS a solution.

Guns are a tool. They are inanimate metal and plastic; it takes intent to kill.

Where I live now, I am not so "dependent" upon my gun, and this is because I have other protective measures I did not have before. I see the gun as the last option, the option of absolute desperation for the purpose of defense only.

Yet there are extremists out there who seem to depend upon this as their answer to defense, which it is not. Then there are those who seem to depend upon legislation to deprive their neighbors from this legitimate option for defense.

The answer to violence has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with humanity and our flawed consciousness with respect to human life.

Yes, I am pro-gun and I'm willing to use the gun...in defense, if I am cornered, and consistent with my training.

But I'd far prefer never to have to think about it. I'd prefer that we live in a society that respects life and the reality behind the events of Virginia Tech. It was a man, not a gun, who killed the innocent in cold blood. It was a man, not a gun, who planned, plotted, and carried out this event. It was a man, not a gun, that was seriously mentally disturbed, displaying outright aggressive paranoia when he carried out his act.

If guns were not available to him, he would have found another way. The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns to carry out their slaughter, did they?

Guns have never been the problem; don't make them the scapegoat. It's people who carry out the acts with whatever tool is available.

I am all for a waiting period, strict education, and other "controls", but do not ever take away my gun as long as I am a law-abiding citizen. I maintain the right to defend my life or that of another should the situation call for it.

I just pray that it might never be necessary and that this weapon will only be used to practice hand-eye coordination.

Let the flaming begin: