This post has
been one of the most difficult to write. There are so many facets to this issue
and the dynamics change so often that it makes it difficult to stay on the main
topic. None the less, I will forge ahead on topic of focusing on the
controversy surrounding the so called gun control and stopping the senseless
violence. I am a gun owner, former Infantryman, and supporter of the Second
Amendment. I would love to own an assault rifle but I have no need for one. I am not opposed to
the responsible gun owners who have them for sport.
The hot topic of
today is gun control. This is obviously due to the recently senseless killings of
innocent people in schools, theaters, and malls around the country. To begin
with, let start by making it clear that this subject is more of a political/
personal agenda than stopping violence against innocent people. Everyone from
movie stars, the media, and politicians are making the loudest protests to “do
something” to stop the violence by focusing squarely on guns. The fact that
they immediately start with protesting guns and don’t bother examining the
issue of violence, mental health, and radicalism demonstrates that they have no
interest in addressing the real issues, just getting rid of guns. I wonder what
long term purpose that will serve them?
I find it ironic
that in this day and age, a basic human trait is still as strong as it was
centuries ago, and that is fear of what we don’t understand. Yet, the most of
the people protesting guns who fear guns, are the very ones who criticize gun
proponents for “fearing” their liberal agendas. Yet, they simply refuse to
understand guns, the 2nd Amendment, or even how guns can actually
protect people. To break it down even further, it was guns and the death of
tyrants, dictators and evildoers that has liberated millions of people around
the world including the formation of our free country. Guns have been part of
the human culture since their inception and will continue to play a part though
that point is often ignored.
The liberal
protesters in this case, are notorious for putting labels on people and beliefs
with a negative spin in the hopes of getting others to jump on their bandwagon.
Anti gay people are now homophobes,
people who disagree with illegal immigration are now racists, and people who
support any war are war mongers. Second Amendment supporters and NRA members
are being called gun nuts, gun fanatics, and trigger happy zealots, all with
negative connotations. Pay attention to what liberals in the media call anyone
who goes against their thinking and you’ll see for yourself. It will usually
lead to some extreme agenda in long run.
So, to begin, the
issue at hand is not really about guns, assault rifles or otherwise like they
want you to believe, it is about senseless violence against innocent people.
The problem with that is that there is no simple solution to controlling
unstable people without violating civil rights, making exceptions, and possibly
repealing the 2nd Amendment which not only strikes at the very core
of our society, but could create some very scary unintended consequences. When
gun critics realized this, they made the issue about guns and turned it into an
emotionally charged movement to ban guns.
Let’s start by
accepting the fact that violence has been around since the dawn of man and will
continue to exist regardless of the method. If unstable people have a point to
make, they will make it with or without guns. They will either find a way
around any ban or come up with some other sick way to make their point. These
unstable people can just as easily kill a lot of people with knifes,
explosives, chemicals, or blow up a building full of innocent people, what
their sick minds come up with, may be even more gruesome than people being
shot. Remember folks, that’s why they’re unstable, they don’t think rationally.
The 9 -11 hijackers killed hundreds of innocent people, and they were only
armed with box cutters! (1) With that being said, I don’t believe any ban,
law, or policy will be as effective as most anti gun people would have us
believe.
“The more things are forbidden,
the more popular they become”. Mark
Twain
“You may eat the fruit from any
tree in the garden, except the tree in the middle.” God
“Good people do not need laws to
tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the
laws”. Plato.
Some of the more
radical gun critics have actually recommended repealing the 2nd
Amendment to our constitution. Not only will that set precedence for other
repeals and bans, it will open the door to total government control of our
lives. Once an armed controlling group, be it terrorists, criminals, or the
government, realizes that another has no means of defense; they will
immediately assume total control and oppression will follow soon after. History
has repeated this over and over as have mass murderers.
I’ve included
Mexican President Calderon (and predecessors) with other oppressive leaders to
demonstrate how banning guns from citizens creates oppression. It leaves the common
man defenseless against anyone with guns.
“Politicians prefer unarmed peasants”.
Other gun critics
have proposed banning or restricting only assault weapons. Well, if you were to
look at this point from a logical and statistical standpoint, according to the
FBI Unified Crime Report, more people in the US were killed by handguns, not assault
or any other type of fire arm (3). So how will banning a smaller
percentage of weapons not used in violence reduce senseless violence? Of those
handguns used in violence, just under half were stolen. Same question. Also, overall gun violence has been dropping
every year since 2006.
“A well armed
society is a polite society.” Robert Anson Heinlein
Using a
reasonable logic on senseless violence, Thousands of innocent people die every
day because of drunk drivers and other violent crimes. Where’s the outrage
there? There are already laws in place against drunk driving, yet people still
drive drunk every day. In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver (4) yet drunk driving
cases increase every year. Why is there no demand to ban cars? The principle
remains the same for both issues, its not the instrument, it’s the person
wielding the instrument but there is no benefit in banning cars or alcohol.
“A sword is never a killer, it's
a tool in the killer's hands.”
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "The Younger" ca. (4 BC - 65
AD).
The words of
Lucius Seneca were spoken around 60 AD. That shows that in his time, a
“civilized” Greece faced the same dilemma we are discussing today. I have found
no law(s) banning swords in ancient Greece. Yet, Greece still lives today.
In conclusion, I am not
attempting to create a bandwagon for anyone to jump on, I only want you to see
that there are so many other facets to examine and study before taking a stand
on this so called gun control issue. I’m sure there are many more problems and
issues regarding this matter, but you must address those yourself with an understanding
that whatever decision is made, it must be logical, reasonable and in the best
interest of our society. It is a decision that cannot be made as a knee jerk
reaction based on emotion, personal feelings, or political agendas. Strongly consider
the factor of unstable people in our society and the social issues that cause
these people to snap. It’s not just about the guns. Our Constitution has made
America the most prosperous and powerful country in the world. Now is not the
time to start gouging the constitution for political reasons without regard for
our future. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason, and without it,
all the others are worthless.
(1)
The question of whether the outcome of 9-11 would have been any different if
the hijackers had been armed with guns has led many to believe that, if the
hijackers would have had guns instead of box cutters, they would have been
caught before they boarded the aircraft, thus avoiding the disaster. I differ
in that opinion because I know that the mindset before 9-11 was not as
heightened, therefore, boarding a plane with a gun would have been easier than
it is today. Even today, the TSA has reported finding over 1,500 guns at
airports and in aircraft. If that many were found in a post 9-11 security minded
state with increased detection technology, how much easier would it have been
to get a gun on-board a plane before the 9-11 security measures? The hijackers
planned that event for over a year, if they can figure out how to take over an
airliner while in flight, re direct it, navigate it, while coordinating with
others doing the same, isn’t it possible that they could have figured out a way
to smuggle a gun onto a plane?
(2)
There have been many reports that state that 70% or more of the weapons
recovered in Mexico come from the U.S. I do agree that many do come from the
U.S. but what is not stated in those statistics is that many of those guns are
actually stolen from US citizens which cannot be counted as exported. Another
fact that is conveniently left out is that, guns recovered with ground off
serial numbers, are also credited with coming from the US if the model is the
same as the traced guns, sometimes including the Chinese Norinco CQ 5.56mm Type
A which is an American AR 15 knockoff. What is not included in the 70% of guns,
are those which are still in use, which I have seen as authentic AK 47s,
Chinese and Hungarian knockoffs of the AK 47as well as many other non US made
assault rifles. Most of those weapons are smuggled in from El Salvador and
Guatemala where there are thousands of guns left over from civil wars. I have
also seen Chinese made equipment and grenades captured from cartel members.
Remember folks, Mexican drug cartels have big money and they will get weapons
from anyone willing to sell, not just the US. If all the guns in cartel hands
in Mexico were counted, I would be willing to bet that the number of US guns in
Mexico would be way lower than 70%.
(3) I am not a big
fan of Unified Crime Reports as I know from experience with UCRs, that statistics
are sometimes skewed to reflect political and tax revenue agendas. I know that
a UCR report can reflect a gunshot to head as “blunt trauma” in a case where
the weapon was never found. A suicide can also be shown as a gun crime to
increase support for gun control, or ruled as just a suicide with no mention of
a gun being used to reduce the gun crimes numbers. There is no set conformity standard
for reporting UCR stats and no exact definition of the reported crime required.
None the less, here are the FBI statistics I used.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
(4) If these statistics are even remotely
correct, 211 innocent children were killed in 2010 in drunk driving related
incidents. (That’s 17.5 children a month). In many of these cases, the children
were killed by their drunken parents. When large numbers of children are killed
at once such as in Newtown, the reaction has more of an emotional impact
because we saw it with our eyes on the news, but that should have no more of an
emotional impact than the other 211 children who died needlessly one by one
because we never heard of each incident or saw the aftermath of those crashes.
(National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. “Traffic Safety Facts 2010: Alcohol Impaired
Driving”
