Inconsequential Consequences (Part 4 of 4)

In the previous three parts, my research has taken me on a journey which I never fully expected to embark upon. Originally, the intent of this project was to act as a historic counterpoint to the present discussions about gun control here in the U.S.

“Why are people so afraid of AR’s? When was the last time they were used to propel a chain of events into a global crisis?” was my thought process, months ago. Looking back from the advocates of such control, it is easy to imagine my perspective as being somewhat callous towards the recent victims of these tools in the hands of evil people.

However, when looking at it with lenses of historic relevance, the problems so many people attest to these weapons are miniscule in relation to the otherwise inconspicuous firearms that were used to shape the events we study on the macro level.

The key phrase above is “these tools in the hands of evil people.” In the examples I have provided, the motives are questionable but similar:

“…Anarchist…”

“…Nationalist…”

“…Resentment, activism…”

“…Must be assassinated…”

“…Paranoia…”

“…Desire for publicity…”

“…I could not tolerate him any longer…”

“…Mutual disgust…”

“…Resentment…”

“…Emotionally disturbed…”

“…Erratic declarations…”

All extremely negative mental states which saw an opportunity for what the perpetrator viewed as possible change.

How they obtained their firearms varied from legal purchases to being assigned their weapon for the completion of their official duties. With the exception of only two examples, all were far from the “evil assault weapons” discussed at length by our present media.

Today, we miss the significance behind what is not accurately reported: the grim determination of terrorists to use whatever means necessary to either further their cause or generate national attention. The U.S Department of State’s compilation of terrorist incidents between 1961 and 2003 is not limited to firearms only; the use of explosives and vehicles to promote a cause and instill fear within a populace shows a grim determination of the instigators. The memory of the domestic terrorist group – the Weather Underground – and their attacks upon the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and other government buildings during the 1970s has effectively faded; even recent events like the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing have been reduced to footnotes in discussions about what dangerous materials to regulate. “Control” is what is demanded, loudly, but the answer often follows along the lines of “there already is control.”

What were the types of firearms responsible for major political and national conflict?

Who was the target and what made them vital to a cause or ideal?

Who was the “shooter” and what were their motivations?

Overall, what were the repercussions of these intersections between privately-owned firearms and policy – both foreign and domestic?

In reality, these questions are somewhat moot for the simple fact that the inconsequential often has severe consequences. History has been changed by rounds as small as a .22-caliber projectile. What matters is the motivations and the repercussions – if an understanding of the “why” and how to minimize the “…and then,” is reached, then the “how” evil can wield a tool to shape change can be anticipated and mitigated. Man will, in my opinion, never reach the lofty Utopian ideals of a truly non-violent society, but an understanding of how to listen and think just may help us figure out how to act with honor, compassion, and hope for a tomorrow which is a little bit better than yesterday.