{"id":6235,"date":"2016-06-28T20:50:24","date_gmt":"2016-06-29T01:50:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=6235"},"modified":"2016-06-29T19:52:38","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T00:52:38","slug":"integrative-complexity-and-the-assault-rifle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=6235","title":{"rendered":"Integrative Complexity and the Assault Rifle"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not too long ago, I wrote a piece about integrative complexity<\/a> and the transexual bathroom debate. I was trying to make the point that a lot of modern social issues (such as the matter of trans-sexual people and which bathrooms they should be allowed to use) have become highly politicized. There has been a lot of polarization as a result (or perhaps just as much a cause) between those on either side of an issue. And thus there has been less and less opportunity for reasonable compromises to evolve in this age of digital communitarianism (a fancy word for the polarizing effects of social media). The ease by which people can affiliate with others of like mind (it can be done right on your smartphone while waiting at the supermarket checkout!) makes us less and less able to consider why the other side might have some legitimate points, as compared to dealing with other people in person. <\/p>\n

In the wake of the tragedy 2 weeks ago Orlando (the shooting and killing of 49 victims in a gay nightclub by Omar Mateen, a young American of Afghan family descent who expressed his sympathy for radical Islamic causes, but was not directly tied to any of them), there has been a lot written about whether new gun control laws are needed to help prevent future incidents similar to this one. And a lot of this writing reflects strong viewpoints that are passionately held by those both in favor of and opposed to gun laws. So once again, we have an issue (actually, a number of related sub-issues) that has caused a lot of polarization and unwillingness to consider the legitimate concerns of the opposing side. And once again, a handful of proposed legislative attempts to inject more state oversight into who buys what kind of weapon came to naught. <\/p>\n

Once again, we need an integrative complexity<\/a> approach to the questions that have been raised anew as another deranged individual uses high-powered weapons that were legally available to him, as to inflict a lot of suffering and take away a lot of innocent lives in a very short period of time. Can integrative complexity help to beat the NRA? Well, so far nothing else is working<\/a>, so it seems worth a shot (pun NOT intended — just trying to relate to the pro-gun people, in the name of integrative complexity). <\/p>\n

Therefore \u2013 assuming that our ambiguous and confounding Second Amendment makes it impossible to ban all public gun ownership, should we still attempt to craft and enforce laws making it illegal to sell, purchase, own or use what are commonly called \u201cassault weapons\u201d? E.g., the Sig Sauer GCX rifle that Omar Mateen used? On first blush, I would say YES<\/strong>. Personally, I don\u2019t own a gun, now or in the past, and I see no need to be able to spit lethal slugs of lead through the air over hundreds of yards at high speeds. But let me admit one thing before I go any further — I live alone in a small apartment, and I do sometimes worry about an intruder invasion at night while I sleep (or having someone inside when I come home). Personally, I would like to keep a can of bear pepper spray<\/a> (which supposedly can stop a bear at 30 feet) under my bed and in my tote bag. But in New Jersey you can\u2019t buy a pepper spray can that big; so I have a street-legal 3\/4 ounce hand-held sprayer tucked in my drawer. Which might work if the intruder gets right next to me (assuming he hasn\u2019t already shot me or stabled me). It\u2019s better than nothing, but not by much.<\/p>\n

But despite my desire for more pepper spray fire-power, I personally see no need to keep an AR-15 rifle or any other sort of gun on my premises. And thus I don\u2019t understand why so many Americans (possibly around 5 million) feel the need to keep such large semi-automatic weapons. Wouldn\u2019t a handgun that is good for around 50-100 yards be enough to protect one\u2019s body and premises in most imaginable circumstances? (The AR-15 and its like have an effective shooting range of over 500 yards). <\/p>\n

And as to hunting \u2013 I thought that most hunting was done with classic bolt-action rifles that were good for maybe 10 shots, one bullet every 4 to 6 seconds. A GCX or AR-15 semi-auto can use a 30 shot clip and fire about 1 round per second; after a 5 to 10 second break to change the clip, the user can resume his barrage. Also, the AR-15 user can fire from a military stance, i.e. holding the gun at mid-body versus the classic hunter\u2019s on-the-shoulder positioning. That\u2019s great if you are in a military battle and need to move and re-position yourself and your weapon very quickly, but why do average civilians not intent on mass murder need such killing capacity? As to the Second Amendment, doesn\u2019t a situation like that fall more under the \u201cwell regulated militia\u201d intention of the Founding Fathers?<\/p>\n

But OK \u2013 I want to hear from both sides on this issue. There is a very good article<\/a> on the Vox site addressing my question of why civilians want and need to have AR-15\u2019s in their lives, by Jon Stokes. Stokes has written some thoughtful articles<\/a> detailing the pitfalls of gun control laws, especially President Bill Clinton\u2019s 10-year federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and also including the various state level attempts to restrict assault weapons since then. In the interest of integrative complexity, let me review Mr. Stokes\u2019 recent apologia for the AR-15. <\/p>\n

Overall, I believe that Mr. Stokes did a wonderful job of explaining the AR-15 and why it gives its users so much power. I can understand why anyone whose hobby is collecting and shooting guns wants one. As a person with an engineering background, I admire the AR-15 as a well-designed and highly-functional machine. I can understand and relate to the techno-fetish aspect of Mr. Stokes\u2019s explanation. As a (very) amateur photographer, I myself am subject to falling in love with cameras that are well designed, are extremely flexible, and can take decent pictures under extreme circumstances where your smartphone is going to just give you a blur (I\u2019m presently wrangling with myself about dropping $400+ on a Lumix FZ300).<\/p>\n

Stokes argues that the military heritage of semi-automatic assault rifles like the AR-15 should NOT be a disqualifier, because throughout history soldiers have brought home the advanced weapons that their armies had used and found significant uses for them in civilian life. His prime example is the “Henry lever action rifle”, first used in the Civil War and then brought home to become the well-known bolt-action hunting rifle that I mentioned above. OK, sure \u2013 Johnny came marching home in 1865 and thereafter was able to keep the family sated with venison all winter long. But the military of the 20th century also developed grenade launchers and flame-throwers and nuclear artillery shells. Don’t ask about the 21st century, with its lasers and electric rail guns. Should former soldiers be allowed to play with those things too? The point is that we are way beyond the Civil War, and the weapons being developed and used today by the military are much more capable of mass killing. Suppose Pickett\u2019s troops had AR-15\u2019s at Gettysburg?<\/p>\n

Stokes makes a lot of very interesting and cogent points. But once I reached the end of his article, I still could not understand why owning an AR-15 might be essential to one\u2019s life or well-being, or even necessary for a traditional and well-respected hobby interest (like my amateur photography). Mr. Stokes spent one or two lines in his article enumerating the actual non-police\/non-military uses of the AR-15, including the following: Boar Hunting; Hobby Shooting Tournaments; Military Re-enactments; Rapid-Fire Skeet Shooting; and Varmint Control. Just what varmints are we talking about? And why do you need to pick fights with mean things like wild boars? How much of what we do for fun deserves constitutional protection from society’s interest in keeping a very deadly killing instrument away from those who want to do a lot of harm to the public? <\/p>\n

Stokes suggests that an AR-15 would be a fine thing to have for situations where you need to kill \u201cadrenaline-fueled humans\u201d, situations commonly faced by the military and police. But for an average citizen who isn\u2019t necessarily interested in killing others, but just wants to avoid being killed, isn\u2019t a pistol enough protection? Most of us don\u2019t even feel that we need a small 9mm in our lives. <\/p>\n

Mr. S has a better point regarding the foibles of laws and the political processes behind those laws . . . admittedly, the history of gun legislation doesn\u2019t inspire much confidence in the rationality of the legislative process or the outcome. But somehow, Canada does it<\/a>, and people aren\u2019t streaming across the border (especially out in Manitoba or Saskatchewan or British Columbia) for the right to own AR15\u2019s. At the end of the article, Stokes says that he can support stronger laws to keep powerful weapons like the AR-15 and GCX from a small set of people who have been clearly identified by the government as potentially dangerous. \u201cWe should qualify or disqualify people, not gun designs. That’s a tall order, and it requires a ton of care if we’re going to respect all parts of the Bill of Rights. But I think if we all start with a few things that we agree on and then work from there, then there may be some hope of keeping guns out of the hands of crazed loners.\u201d <\/p>\n

Obviously, Jon Stokes is being a good bit more liberal and open-minded (and integratively complex) than the NRA, which claims that any attempt by the government to identify those crazed loners will be flawed and will no doubt impinge on the sacred rights of the citizenry because of inherent government incompetence. Given the results of the Democratic \u201csit-in\u201d event<\/a> last week in the US House of Representatives (the US Senate also didn\u2019t<\/a> get anywhere on big guns despite some sympathy from GOP Senator Collins from Maine), where even the most limited bill focusing solely on the shortest lists and highest rankings of people with ties to terrorism and violence, the governmental distrust sentiment<\/a> is ruling the day. <\/p>\n

This is Stokes’s true point. He doesn’t provide much integration nor complexity to his arguments defending the social utility of allowing citizens to have free-use of the AR-15 and its like. But he reaches stronger grounds when he talks about those who would stop him from buying or using such weapons, and how they would do it. Stokes’ final integration, with all its complexity, is this: the AR-15 might not be much more than a fun toy for Stokes and his gun-admiring friends to possess . . . no wait, in the interest of integrative complexity, let me admit that in the eyes of a techno-geek, the AR-15 is as much a work of art as a Rodin sculpture . . . nonetheless, its social uses aren’t terribly impressive, and its anti-social uses are extremely deadly . . . but he and his like will be damned if they are going to just sit around and wait for a bunch of bozo bureaucrats led by a cadre of corrupt and devious leaders from their ritzy enclave along the East Coast to come and take their guns! <\/p>\n

Memo to Hilary Clinton \u2013 if you manage to beat Trump this November, which seems do-able at present assuming that your e-mail server sins weren\u2019t as bad as many people seem to believe (and I myself don\u2019t think that<\/a> they are entirely daydreaming), you are not going to get too far unless you give the public a much better impression of government, and of yourself. (Think of all the Obama Administration plans that have been frustrated since the one big win on health care \u2013 and even that remains under attack.) <\/p>\n

Ms. Clinton, the public doesn\u2019t trust you very much, and they aren\u2019t very impressed with the competence of most government workers and activities. How are you going to expand the government\u2019s role in society if people don\u2019t trust you or the many, many people who will work for you and your government? Why should folks who enjoy walking around their property out in Oklahoma or Montana with an AR-15 at the hip, taking out all those damn varmints digging up their lower 40, trust you and your \u201cAdministration\u201d that it\u2019s all for the common good that they not be able to get 30-round clips, and that they have strong restrictions on who they might eventually give or sell their wonderful \u201cshooting system\u201d to? You say that you have a plan<\/a> to regain trust — in the name of integrative complexity, I sincerely hope that it works!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Not too long ago, I wrote a piece about integrative complexity and the transexual bathroom debate. I was trying to make the point that a lot of modern social issues (such as the matter of trans-sexual people and which bathrooms they should be allowed to use) have become highly politicized. There has been a lot […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,7,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6235"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6235"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6235\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6253,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6235\/revisions\/6253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}