Ok, I have been thinking long and hard about gun
control. I know many people who are opposed
to gun control, but usually we don’t talk about what is meant by “gun control”
vs. regulation, and when we dig deeper we have a more complex conversation. As
with most things, I believe there needs to be a balance. A balance between
complete restriction and unregulated gun ownership (which is what we have in
America today). I hear several arguments
against gun control of any sort and thought I would address them here. At the
very minimum, I see no reason why we should not have a ban on assault weapons
and high ammunition clips. I know some
of you may think I am not going far enough, but lets get the low hanging
fruit. The issue of our culture of
violence and guns is much wider and will take longer. Lets start with doing what we can immediately
do to protect the citizens and the children of this country. I welcome your feedback
The Hunting Argument –
Although it is not my preference to murder Bambi, (ok, I
admit a bias here) I have no problem with Hunters owning guns. I find that people who hunt tend to be knowledgeable
about guns. But one doesn’t need to have
hand guns, assault weapons or high capacity ammunition to hunt, so this is a fallacious
argument regarding gun regulation. If
all you are using your gun for is to hunt, then I do not see why regulation
concerns you.
Just the bad guys will have guns and I have the right to
protect myself argument
So first, the statement just the bad guys will have guns is
not completely true, as law enforcement will have guns as well. This argument revolves around hand guns. The reality is, most hand gun deaths in
America are at the hands of a family member, usually in the heat of passion or by
accidental death (usually mistaken identity). This is
a fact. The number of hand guns that
are used to actually deter crimes by citizens is very small. In the Gabrielle Gifford shooting spree:
Joe Zamudio who did have a gun at the
event said "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was
ready,I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket And I came around
the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was
wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner,
he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the
shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "But
the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the
shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,"
the interviewer pointed out. Zamudio agreed:
We have a wild west mentality, which I personally think as a
culture we need to change, but again, this argument about protecting oneself from "bad guys" does not have anything to do with
limiting assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips.
2nd amendment and overthrowing the government
argument
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed”
I am not a historian, but clearly this relates to creating a
militia, which was needed as we really did not have a national armed services
at the time it was created. If there really is a
concern about a tyrannical government, and the need to overthrow it, well lets
just be honest, if things ever get to that point, we are totally screwed as a
country. I would suggest that people
worried about a fascist government should get involved in government to make
the country work for all people instead of assuming it is going to go down the
toilet. My question would be, why do you not want to help other citizens
instead of trying to defend yourselves against them. And here is the reality, no matter what
weapons you have, if the scenario of a fascist government does happen, whatever
side our military is on will win this conflict, not some militia in the
woods. Spend your energy making the
country equitable for all people. Instead of thinking of better ways to kill
each other, let us use that energy to think of ways to lift people up and to
heal people. I understand the intellectual argument of the second amendment,
which I believe is based in fear not freedom, but if we are honest, we often
give up certain freedoms to secure our safety.
The question is how many freedoms, which freedoms, and what are the
corresponding benefits. I think banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition
is well worth the benefit. This is very utilitarian I know, but the scales have
been tipped too far to the side of violence.
We do have deal with the underlying root causes, but we can first deal
with some of the symptoms which are guns. Which brings me to the final argument I often
hear which is:
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people –
Yes, people can find ways to kill if they really want to
(and they have). But they would have to
find those other ways to kill. Having a
gun is an easy way to kill. Having
assault weapons and high capacity ammunition is an easier way to kill a lot more
people. And guns are easy to
obtain. Other methods of mass killing
are not so easy to obtain. Many people
may not figure out a way to kill others if it is not easy. Or maybe they will not be able to kill as
many people. We have to start somewhere.
There are many other things we can do to help people, but we can also take
action to limit their options to cause harm.
Some final thoughts
We as a society have to choose what our values are. How many
more children have to be sacrificed so that gun companies can continue to make
profits, or to support the idea that every individual freedom taken to the
extreme is superior to the common good. Yes
the Connecticut shooting was worse because they were young children, but any
life senselessly lost, is not acceptable. We should start talking and thinking about
what we can do as a society to change our culture of violence, but we can start
today by eliminating the completely unnecessary sale of assault weapons and high ammunition clips.
