While driving home recently, I encountered a woman who appeared at first glance to be drunk, staggering down the middle of the street. I almost drove by but she seemed to be in pretty rough shape, so I stopped and asked if she was OK. As she turned to me, I could see that her face was badly hurt, perhaps beaten by someone. She had difficulty speaking but said she thought she had lost a lot of blood and needed to get to a hospital. I put her in my car and called 911.
It turned out that this 19-year-old girl had actually been shot in the head, as had her 17-year-old friend. The suspect (now in custody) is a 21-year-old who, based on his own (presumed) Facebook posting, appears to have been simply jealous, having lost the girl to his best friend. High-school stuff – the kind of minor drama we've all put behind us. Yet this guy apparently lived in a strange world where it's appropriate to kill over such things. A subsequent presumed post declared that this was a suitable penalty for people who wronged him in this way: "They catch bullets." Such flippant words for something as serious as murder! The suspect's Facebook page is filled with immature posts about guns – with plenty of "likes." How does a young man come to trivialize this kind of thing? Perhaps he's just sick, or even evil. Certainly we are responsible for our own actions and must be held accountable, but I wonder if our society's tough-guy attitude about firearms encourages such thinking.
Let me say, for the record, that I am not opposed to guns. I believe in our right as citizens to protect ourselves and our families. I own guns for both hunting and protection – and wish that I'd had one with me while I waited for the police to show up that night, wondering how I would protect this girl, or myself, if the perpetrator was still nearby and showed up to finish the job.
Unfortunately, it's not just criminals who absorb the "Rambo Ethic." There are many cases where guns are used recklessly, or in anger, by "normal" people who simply haven't got a clue. A woman in Detroit shoots at a fleeing shoplifter in a busy parking lot. A Florida man kills a 17-year-old kid during an argument about loud music. George Zimmerman steps beyond his role as a neighborhood-watch volunteer (you know, "watch," like with your eyes) to confront someone directly, and it ends in a kid's death. Assemblywoman Amy Demboski steps out of the relative safety of her car, armed, to confront a simple vandal rather than calling the police and perhaps taking some photos. She could easily have been another Zimmerman.
The common thread among criminals and vigilantes alike is that they all seem to have an inclination to be confrontational -- to look for trouble. I would submit that when you strap on a firearm, you assume the responsibility to expressly avoid confrontation. Those with real training and experience will tell you that, at least for an individual, using a gun is a desperation move, when you or someone else is in imminent danger and there is no opportunity to flee confidently. Whether you fancy yourself a hero or a villain, if you think reaching for a gun should ever be your first choice, you are ignorant at best and delusional at worst.
It is clear that we have created a Wild West mentality with regard to guns that does everyone, including gun advocates, a huge disservice. Culture makes a difference in attitudes and behavior. I once had a dog team that was never permitted to fight. Having purchased a new dog, I hooked him up for the first time and he snapped at the dog next to him. All the other dogs drew away and stared wide-eyed as if to say, "Oh! We don't do that here!" He was never any further trouble. We gun owners also need to quit acting and speaking like "loose cannons" (simile intentional). Sarah Palin's references to "reloading" after a lost election, and displaying maps with cross hairs on the homes of elected representatives, are irresponsible in the extreme. (Perhaps we could go back to sports metaphors.) How else can we improve our culture with respect to guns? What about some education?
Years ago, when concealed carry first became legal in Alaska, you needed a permit and you needed to take an approved class. Both requirements have since been eliminated. Heaven forbid anyone be mildly inconvenienced in the pursuit of their constitutional rights. I took the class at the time and it was excellent. Much more than just gun safety and handling, the class examined the practicality of actually using a firearm in earnest and the law surrounding the use of deadly force. It's depressing how few gun owners know much about either. I've heard people describing what they'd do if they came home and suspected there was a burglar in their home. They might be surprised to learn that it is neither legal nor moral to barge in with your Glock, precipitating a confrontation in which you might end up killing some kid who's trying to steal your 72-inch plasma TV. It's also incredibly stupid. "Clearing" a house is one of the most dangerous things that police do.
Consider that you can't even rent a car until you're 25 years old, yet in the majority of states, including Alaska, an 18-year-old kid can buy a handgun with no required training. You have to take a class before you can get your first hunting license in Alaska, but you can buy a handgun, stick it in your belt and go out "hunting" bad guys with no interference at all from society at large. Where is the common sense here? Would better gun laws and social attitudes have avoided the particular incident that prompted me to speak about this? Perhaps not, but it can't possibly hurt to tone down the rhetoric, act like adults and enact reasonable gun laws, including background checks on all gun sales and a requirement for a training class before your first purchase. And while we're at it, let's require the teaching of conflict resolution in schools.
One more thing: The young woman whom I found in the street said that other cars had passed her by. I could have easily done that myself. Please keep in mind that someone who is badly hurt or seriously ill can appear or even sound drunk, although it shouldn't really matter if alcohol is involved or not. If someone appears to be impaired to the extent that they may be vulnerable in any way, you don't have to make a medical assessment or character judgment, nor do you need to place yourself at risk if you feel vulnerable. If you do nothing else, call for help from the safety of your locked car. Everyone is someone's baby.
Lou Nathanson, an ambivalent gun owner, currently resides in Anchorage but also spent many years in the Bush. A refugee from New York, he has lived in Alaska since 1977.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.