The Great Gun Control Debate
Gun control to stop criminal violence makes about as much sense as limiting pseudoephedrine sales to stop crystal meth production. Sure, it may seem like they are connected, but just like a meth cooker will find a way to make their product, violent criminals will still find a way to commit violence.
So we treat them the same way. We address the socio-economic issues that create the "need" for them. We enable law enforcement to pro-actively seek out and identify the perpetrators of them. We enact sensible laws that allow those who legally use the product to continue to do so without undue hassle.
We should not allow tragedy and fear to drive law making. If a law only makes sense in the wake of a tragedy it is not a sensible law. In the wake of a mass shooting it makes sense to tighten down on gun control, but five of six months from now when the tragedy has washed away from most minds will it still make sense? If it makes sense after the tragedy, did it make sense before? If it makes sense absent the tragedy why did we not see these absurd calls for tighter gun control before them?
You will of course note the overuse of the word "tragedy." I did so intentionally to emphasise a point. It was a tragedy. It was not an inevitability of our cultural state. It was not an anticipated incident that could have been prepared for. An extreme set of circumstances led to a disturbed human being having access to firearms, a motivation to use them, and the opportunity to act on both access and motivation.
"But Gus, over 20 innocent people lost their lives in a single day. Something must be done to end this madness." Of course, no one actually said that to me, but it echoes the thoughts of many across the nation. So we attempt to assign blame so that some one/thing can be punished. This is where Gun Control comes in.
Gun Control is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and criminalize guns and gun owners for the actions of an extreme minority of human beings who use those guns from villainous and criminal purpose. Firearms seem to be the only thing that, when used for criminal purpose, has a war waged against it.
Vehicles are used for all kinds of criminal activity. The cause deaths on their own, in addition to the deaths caused by the criminal activity they support, yet no one is calling for a ban on certain cars. Banks are used to filter the money of both violent and non-violent criminals across the world but no one is calling for banks to be shut down.
The reason is because we have all come to expect that vehicles and banks are necessary things that are unfortunately used for criminal purpose. Why can we not make this connection with guns? Throughout history, weapons have remained the cornerstone of human-kinds ability to defend itself from evil. The AR15 is simply the modern musket. The musket was simply the modern bow and arrow. The bow and arrow was the modern....You get the idea.
Lets talk about some sensible laws that make sense absent recent tragedy. Registration is something that the NRA led anti-gun control crowd is adamantly against, however I think that if handled properly it would not interfere with law abiding citizens (LAC) ability to easily and legally own weapons. No one seems to think registering vehicles interferes with our ability to own and operate our cars, so we can chalk this one up as sensible. If the process was cheap and took less than one day I think it would quickly become a non-issue despite opposition.
I think the most important thing that could be done is to have Gun Control laws be consistent across the US. A drivers license from Texas is good in Illinois, why shouldn't a concealed carry permit be? One system across the nation would serve to close a lot of the loopholes in the system. To carry over the licensing, I think requiring licensing for firearms is a sensible idea.
Much like a drivers license, it would require a functional knowledge of gun laws, and includes a basic proficiency test to ensure safe operation. The license could have special endorsements to allow for concealed carry, hunting, open carry, and any other special needs. You get caught using a gun without your license and it can be confiscated and you get a ticket. You pay the ticket and get your license and you get your gun back. Jobs open up in firearms education like we have for drivers education. This would even allow for a "learners permit" type system where those under 18 can get a permit that would allow them to take a safety course. Go to ranges with licensed adults to train, but not be allowed to carry and such. Again, if the process is properly streamlined it does not interfere with LAC and should not be an issue.
We could argue crime statistics until we are blue in the face. The UK has terrible restrictive gun laws, almost no gun violence, but is one of the most violent crime places in Europe. Australia is slightly less restrictive but has almost no violent crime. Switzerland has military weapons in nearly every household and almost no violent crime. Looking within the US you will also find crime stats to support either argument. The fact of the matter is that guns are not going to go anywhere in the US. We have a responsibility to ensure that sensible controls are put into place to do as much as possible to keep people safe.
The nonsense about banning "assault weapons" is just that, nonsense. It really only calls for bans on cosmetic features that do not change the functionality of the weapon. The ban on magazines with more than 10 round capacity is also nonsense. It only makes sense because they call them "high capacity". The fact is that different weapons have different standard magazines with different capacities. For an AR15 that standard is 30. For pistols it ranges anywhere from 2 to 15. Hunting rifles and shotguns have similar ranges. These bans are utterly pointless, and the last one was an utter failure.
I hope a sensible solution can be found, before a non-sensible solution in either directions becomes law. Guns cannot and will not go away, but that does not mean we do not have a responsibility to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable and criminals.
So we treat them the same way. We address the socio-economic issues that create the "need" for them. We enable law enforcement to pro-actively seek out and identify the perpetrators of them. We enact sensible laws that allow those who legally use the product to continue to do so without undue hassle.
We should not allow tragedy and fear to drive law making. If a law only makes sense in the wake of a tragedy it is not a sensible law. In the wake of a mass shooting it makes sense to tighten down on gun control, but five of six months from now when the tragedy has washed away from most minds will it still make sense? If it makes sense after the tragedy, did it make sense before? If it makes sense absent the tragedy why did we not see these absurd calls for tighter gun control before them?
You will of course note the overuse of the word "tragedy." I did so intentionally to emphasise a point. It was a tragedy. It was not an inevitability of our cultural state. It was not an anticipated incident that could have been prepared for. An extreme set of circumstances led to a disturbed human being having access to firearms, a motivation to use them, and the opportunity to act on both access and motivation.
"But Gus, over 20 innocent people lost their lives in a single day. Something must be done to end this madness." Of course, no one actually said that to me, but it echoes the thoughts of many across the nation. So we attempt to assign blame so that some one/thing can be punished. This is where Gun Control comes in.
Gun Control is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and criminalize guns and gun owners for the actions of an extreme minority of human beings who use those guns from villainous and criminal purpose. Firearms seem to be the only thing that, when used for criminal purpose, has a war waged against it.
Vehicles are used for all kinds of criminal activity. The cause deaths on their own, in addition to the deaths caused by the criminal activity they support, yet no one is calling for a ban on certain cars. Banks are used to filter the money of both violent and non-violent criminals across the world but no one is calling for banks to be shut down.
The reason is because we have all come to expect that vehicles and banks are necessary things that are unfortunately used for criminal purpose. Why can we not make this connection with guns? Throughout history, weapons have remained the cornerstone of human-kinds ability to defend itself from evil. The AR15 is simply the modern musket. The musket was simply the modern bow and arrow. The bow and arrow was the modern....You get the idea.
Lets talk about some sensible laws that make sense absent recent tragedy. Registration is something that the NRA led anti-gun control crowd is adamantly against, however I think that if handled properly it would not interfere with law abiding citizens (LAC) ability to easily and legally own weapons. No one seems to think registering vehicles interferes with our ability to own and operate our cars, so we can chalk this one up as sensible. If the process was cheap and took less than one day I think it would quickly become a non-issue despite opposition.
I think the most important thing that could be done is to have Gun Control laws be consistent across the US. A drivers license from Texas is good in Illinois, why shouldn't a concealed carry permit be? One system across the nation would serve to close a lot of the loopholes in the system. To carry over the licensing, I think requiring licensing for firearms is a sensible idea.
Much like a drivers license, it would require a functional knowledge of gun laws, and includes a basic proficiency test to ensure safe operation. The license could have special endorsements to allow for concealed carry, hunting, open carry, and any other special needs. You get caught using a gun without your license and it can be confiscated and you get a ticket. You pay the ticket and get your license and you get your gun back. Jobs open up in firearms education like we have for drivers education. This would even allow for a "learners permit" type system where those under 18 can get a permit that would allow them to take a safety course. Go to ranges with licensed adults to train, but not be allowed to carry and such. Again, if the process is properly streamlined it does not interfere with LAC and should not be an issue.
We could argue crime statistics until we are blue in the face. The UK has terrible restrictive gun laws, almost no gun violence, but is one of the most violent crime places in Europe. Australia is slightly less restrictive but has almost no violent crime. Switzerland has military weapons in nearly every household and almost no violent crime. Looking within the US you will also find crime stats to support either argument. The fact of the matter is that guns are not going to go anywhere in the US. We have a responsibility to ensure that sensible controls are put into place to do as much as possible to keep people safe.
The nonsense about banning "assault weapons" is just that, nonsense. It really only calls for bans on cosmetic features that do not change the functionality of the weapon. The ban on magazines with more than 10 round capacity is also nonsense. It only makes sense because they call them "high capacity". The fact is that different weapons have different standard magazines with different capacities. For an AR15 that standard is 30. For pistols it ranges anywhere from 2 to 15. Hunting rifles and shotguns have similar ranges. These bans are utterly pointless, and the last one was an utter failure.
I hope a sensible solution can be found, before a non-sensible solution in either directions becomes law. Guns cannot and will not go away, but that does not mean we do not have a responsibility to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable and criminals.
Comments
Post a Comment