Cathartic Rantings on the Gun Debate
The gun issue, like the immigration debate in many ways, is so frustrating because of a refusal to establish any factual common ground from which to begin the debate. Because of this, my “ask” from those who believe in zero gun regulation has become so small. It begins with the following: Can we agree that the following two statements are true?
- Guns are dangerous.
- Because guns are dangerous, more people die with more guns and ease of access to guns.
Once this is acknowledged, the logical question is not whether there will be blood, but rather how much blood are we willing to accept?
We make these blood trade-offs all the time. We could eliminate virtually all traffic deaths by implementing a 10 MPH universal speed limit. But we are unwilling to do that because of the value cars provide in most people’s lives. Guns (evidently) create a great deal of value in many people’s lives as well. Some civilians (non-law enforcement) do rely on them every day. In fact, I grew up in Alaska toting guns for bear protection during every fishing trip.
But just like cars, guns cost lives. How many should they cost in exchange for sport, hobby and some other uses? (hunting, bear protection, personal and property protection). How many accidental (let’s not forget these) and malicious deaths are we willing to accept?
I am 42 now, and looking back on my own past, I realize that I was indoctrinated into the reality of gun violence from a young age. When I was 12 while sleeping in my bed, I heard a gunshot. The next day I learned that my friend Chad had stolen his father’s unlocked gun and forced my friend Marcus to play Russian Roulette during a sleepover at Marcus’ house, located directly in front on my house. Chad shot Marcus dead through the head.
At 16, I watched on television as a sniper shot Tim in the head while he held a gun to his younger brother. Earlier in the day, during a mental health episode brought on by drug use, Tim shot and killed his mother and his younger sister. Tim was a well-regarded wrestler who had coached me at times, helping me win my first matches.
While they did not use assault rifles, both of these kids were similar to the Florida shooter (and Sandy Hook shooter) in one way. They were unstable young people who had easy access to guns and killed when they were at their worst. In addition to these incidents, several other people were shot at my high school, including one of my close friends who was shot 5 times (and miraculously survived).
The focus on mass shooting gun deaths ignores the enormous number of accidental and non-mass murder gun deaths each year. These numbers will also fall if we can have an honest debate and pass some regulation.
The idea that evil people will find a way to kill regardless of regulation is a straw man argument like so many other arguments against any regulation. Sure, some killers will kill no matter what. But does that justify not trying to prevent some killings? Why have any crime prevention measures if that is your argument against gun control? So much of crime (and life for that matter) is undeniably a confluence of conditions at the same time. As a society, we chose, create and regulate many of these conditions for our own safety. So many deaths would not happen if it was a little harder to get guns. How many lives must be saved to change the stance of the “zero regulation advocates”? If the NRA position continues to be unfettered access to military grade firearms for all, then clearly there will be no compromise. The NRA will continue to “win” by thwarting all regulation, until the tide turns in the wake of more senseless death and regulations begin to trickle in.
The degree to which the U.S. is an outlier regarding number of gun deaths among developed countries is astounding. This good piece from NPR gives us the numbers.
That’s enough off-topic ranting for now. Just like with the immigration debate, if you feel strongly about these issues, stay informed, make sure your position is based on reliable facts and do your best to have an open, productive conversation with those who disagree.
Photo by Sofia Sforza on Unsplash